Town Square

Post a New Topic

Sullivan pulls plug on council meeting after 3-1/2-hour hearing

Original post made on Feb 4, 2009

In an extraordinary but not unprecendented move, Pleasanton City Councilman Matt Sullivan pulled the plug on consideration of a development plan for Staples Ranch last night, arguing that the discussion was far afield from what the City Council had publicized for its meeting.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 7:56 AM

Comments (101)

Posted by West side observer, a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 4, 2009 at 8:30 am

Stoneridge must go through. It has been planned for more than 20 years and is vital to developing Staples Ranch and the Chain of Lakes. Get on with it and take Supervisor Scott Haggerty's offer to pay for the building of the extension.


Posted by Shocked, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 4, 2009 at 8:43 am

Here we go again - Stoneridge SHOULD be extended - that has been on the plans forever - SHAME on those that didn't look at the city plan for the road BEFORE purchasing - that was your responsibility BEFORE you bought. We all knew this was supposed to happen - it's been part of the plan.
I'm just shocked that people don't do the homework BEFORE they buy their houses. KNOW what you're getting into before you buy.

Stoneridge must go through.


Posted by Mae H, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Feb 4, 2009 at 8:43 am

I moved to Pleasanton 3.5 years ago and was trying to learn the streets and neighborhoods, looking for homes to buy and generally exploring the town. I was totally surprised when I found myself unable to go through on Stoneridge Dr. What was up with that? It really should go through.


Posted by Valley & Kolln, a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Feb 4, 2009 at 9:13 am

Doesn't the general plan change, at times? Wasn't Kolln suppose to be open at Valley, until the council heard from the neighbors? If we are going to open roads claiming the general plan - open them all. We'll see if Cook-Kallio (Vice Mayor) is willing to open roads in her neighborhood.


Posted by Bruce, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Feb 4, 2009 at 9:14 am

I'm willing to bet that 99.9% of the residents were aware that Stoneridge Dr. was scheduled to go through before they purchased their homes, they just thought that it was far enough in the future that who cares what happens after I sell.


Posted by West Side Resident, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 4, 2009 at 9:30 am

Until the problems out on 580/680 are adequately addressed I believe that it is unwise to proceed with the Stoneridge extension. It has the very real potential of becoming just another cut through route for non-Pleasanton residents trying to make their way through the valley during the commute. The intention to build it years ago doesn't necessarily make it a good idea now.


Posted by Furdog, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Feb 4, 2009 at 9:34 am

Matt Sullivan has to be the worst City Councilman ever elected! The guy can never make a decision and always wants to postponed things.

The homeowners knew that Stoneridge Drive was eventually going to be completed. It's not Rocket Science to figure that one out. Just drive down the street and look at the infrastructure.

How does a group of homeowners seek to prevent something that is good for the community and fiscally responsible? How does The City of Pleasanton pass up the opportunity of $6 million from The County of Alameda to put the road in?

Come on people....get a CLUE!!!


Posted by Tired of No Progress, a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Feb 4, 2009 at 9:40 am

Clearly, Matt Sullivan does not have greater Pleasanton's best interests at heart, as he continues to obstruct the development of a vital traffic artery. There's little doubt that Stoneridge Drive will eventually go through, and his legacy will be that he cost the city millions of dollars in a time when money is scarce. I watched the council meeting on TV last night, and the desire by city residents to see this issue resolved was clear. Matt's manipulation of the council bought him a few weeks, but let's hope the voters remember this plow in the next election.


Posted by Annie, a resident of Downtown
on Feb 4, 2009 at 9:41 am

OPEN Stoneridge yes, but do it smartly. Open El Charro to Stanley at the same time so that development in that area can take place in an orderly-and planned manner.
Time to move on.


Posted by Cindy, a resident of Avila
on Feb 4, 2009 at 10:01 am

The Stoneridge Drive extension has been unresolved far too long. I If people bought at that end of Stoneridge than shame on them for not realizing that the road would be extended. I bought my home in 1997 and had looked at that area, however when I saw it was a deadend that could easily be opened, I decided to buy elsewhere. Where has common sense gone!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 4, 2009 at 10:13 am

"Obstructionist" comes to mind.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 4, 2009 at 10:16 am

The City went the extra mile notifying beyond the required level and Sullivan still felt not everyone was adequately notified? What's next? Notifying neighbors for over-the-counter permits?


Posted by seriously, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Feb 4, 2009 at 10:20 am

Has anyone noticed the funnel(Valley Ave) that our one and only backroad to Livermore has created? For those of us that live on the south/east side of Pleasanton, we have a desire to get home without having to travel through out of the way neighborhoods to avoid the bottleneck of our main route home. This impacts many more neighborhoods than just Stoneridge. We have waited patiently and quietly for the funnel to be relieved long enough. Is our city council seriously considering punishing one side of town to accomidate the outcry's one street?


Posted by Sylvia, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 4, 2009 at 10:22 am

Someone mentioned the "greater good". How on earth would this be beneficial to Pleasanton? I feel for the residents near Valley (and something should be done to help that area which no one seems to want to address), but don't you think this will just be another Valley/Santa Rita mess if we open it up? Get real, it's going to be another cut-through and we'll have two arteries in Pleasanton hogged by commuters cutting through. Why doesn't Haggerty (or whoever is in charge) make sure that 580 is improved (carpool lanes, adding a lane, etc) before extending Stoneridge. If he did that, there wouldn't be much opposition to putting Stoneridge through because it would lessen the liklihood of cut-thru traffic. People need to think this through before saying this is best for Pleasanton residents because no, it is not!


Posted by seriously, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Feb 4, 2009 at 10:38 am

The Santa Rita/Valley mess will never change until we have another artery to spread the wealth. Have you not noticed the downtown traffic? The volume of cars on all the neighborhoods between Main St. and the southeast side of town? These are all alternative routes for people to get around town. Opening another route to Livermore will relieve this. We will never stop the desire to get to Livermore...even Pleasanton residents go there!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 4, 2009 at 10:50 am

When Sullivan brought up the continuance last night I thought I was having deja vu.


Posted by Mr. Soccer, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 4, 2009 at 10:57 am

I live in this area and I think that working and living in Pleasanton for 30++ yrs would give me the insight to our traffic problems at all times of the day and night via in a car, ride a bike or walk/run. It's time to move forward people! The Staples Ranch site can bring us a lot of tax revenue for us as a community and I think the proposal on the table is a good one that needs to move forward, but with caution. We can't just plow through the road with four lanes of traffic and let them go at it. We All Know Better Than That! Get this going before some other city takes it for them selves and we loose it all, Money and land being extra open space and parks.
MOVE ON!!!


Posted by Tom, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Feb 4, 2009 at 11:31 am

I knew, before the last election, that Matt Sullivan will do what ever possible to stop the extension of Stoneridge Drive. That is why I voted for Cindy and Jerry Pentin. Hopefully, when it comes to the final vote, all other Council members will support it.
I know the other Council members vote for the common good of all Pleasanton. We are stuck with Matt for 4 years, but after that, let him be history.


Posted by John, a resident of Downtown
on Feb 4, 2009 at 11:32 am

It's unfortunate that Sullivan is playing his childish games again.


Posted by James, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 4, 2009 at 11:40 am

When the extension was placed in the General Plan, no one could have fathomed the unrestrained growth of Livermore, Dublin or Tracy. This extension will only serve the residents of those communities and turn Pleasanton into cut-through city. Don't let Pleasanton become Hayward-fide! Fix 580/680 and call on the communities that will be served to help fix the problems their growth has caused.


Posted by Sylvia, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 4, 2009 at 11:50 am

Opening up Stoneridge is NOT going to relieve traffic on Valley or downtown! Why doesn't anyone get that? There will just be MORE cars leaving 580 and cutting through town once another artery is open. The smart thing to do would be to fix 580, then open Stoneridge. Opening it up before that just creates another cut-through that MORE cars will take. Everyone posting is under the assumption that no one else will cut through and therefore those cutting through on Valley and downtown will have another route to take and will relieve those areas. Get a clue - MORE cars will take the cut-throughs. Not only is that common sense, but this has happened in other areas so we should learn from experience! TO OUR COUNTY LEADERS - FIX 580 NOW!!!!! LOCAL LEADERS - PUT PRESSURE ON COUNTY LEADERS TO FIX 580 NOW!!!!


Posted by John, a resident of Downtown
on Feb 4, 2009 at 11:54 am

Sylvia,

Pleasanton has had it's own "unrestrained growth". Hacienda Business Park and Stoneridge Mall are HUGE traffic generators.


Posted by John, a resident of Downtown
on Feb 4, 2009 at 11:55 am

Sorry Sylvia, I was responding to James.


Posted by Jim, a resident of Downtown
on Feb 4, 2009 at 12:19 pm

What makes you anti-Stoneridge types think that once this opens up all teh 580 traffic will be there? The way the city controls traffic lights in this town it would take twice as long to get through town on Stoneridge. The people this will help are the ones already working IN PLEASANTON who help pay for our great community as well as those who live along Valley. Wake up, people, and stop letting Matt Sullivan play to his special interests.


Posted by Jim, a resident of Downtown
on Feb 4, 2009 at 12:19 pm

What makes you anti-Stoneridge types think that once this opens up all teh 580 traffic will be there? The way the city controls traffic lights in this town it would take twice as long to get through town on Stoneridge. The people this will help are the ones already working IN PLEASANTON who help pay for our great community as well as those who live along Valley. Wake up, people, and stop letting Matt Sullivan play to his special interests.


Posted by ruth, a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Feb 4, 2009 at 12:22 pm

It is time for the Council to be leaders, no obstructionists. I applaud the Mayor's efforts last night to override Sullivan's continuance move, but the "house rules" wouldn't allow her to. I didn't vote for Sullivan because I knew he was dead set on stopping Stoneridge from going through unitl 2025!!! The Council needs to take the County up on its offer to pay $6mil for the extension as part of the STaples development plan. If they do not, we risk losing annexation of Staples into Pleasanton and the tax base revenue that that land development could bring to the city. For every year we do not build the extension, the future cost will double and triple, costing the city far more millions. And if the Council votes to include the full buildout of Stoneridge in with STaples, Dublin has agreed to extend Dublin Blvd., helping to distribute traffic through the region. Furthermore, Highway 84 improvements will get more support from the County and Congestion Management Agency for funds. (These facts are true and have been reported in the news and at council meetings.) There was overwhelming resident, business, senior citizen support at last night's meeting to include Stoneridge in the plan and to approve Staples. Let's get on with it before it costs the city more money with each day it's delayed! It's time for Stoneridge to carry its fair share of traffic in the city and help balance circulation for the sake of quality of life and safety!


Posted by Jim, a resident of another community
on Feb 4, 2009 at 12:25 pm

I work in Hacienda Business Park and have stopped visting the downtown Pleasanton restaurants with friends after work. We now go to Dublin as traffic along Santa Rita going towards downtown is a nightmare The logjam of Hacienda workers driving home from Hacienda Bus. park down Santa Rita/Valley to get home to Livermorecreates a log jam for others of us trying support the downtown Pleasanton businesses.

If Stoneridge was connected, Hacienda Bus. Park workers would have another way to get home vs. creating a log jam at Valley. This would make it easier for those of us in North Pleasanton to try to do business with Pleasanton and not be forced to go to Dublin. I miss my tequillas at Blue Agave which is used to visit at least once a month with co-workers. I thought this was the master plan before the Stoneridge hoems were ever built.


Posted by Ruth, a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Feb 4, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Jim,
Excellent comment/point about downtown businesses suffering from the traffic log jam.

I urge all of you commentators to also email your thoughts to the council that Stoneridge must go through and sooner than later with the Staples project. All emails get counted and are included in staff reports. A special meeting to determine SDE's fate is tentatively scheduled for Feb 24. Come out and speak. The council does listen and influenced by your comments.


Posted by CommuterfromTracy, a resident of another community
on Feb 4, 2009 at 12:54 pm

I can't wait to be able to be able to get home to Tracy faster by getting a big freeway through Pleasanton! Thanks for agreeing to built a 580 alternate route and let me use your streets to be able to travel all the way to the Altamont Pass. I will get home at least 20 minutes faster.


Posted by Veteran Commuter, a resident of Downtown
on Feb 4, 2009 at 1:06 pm

Anyone has ever actually tried to use frontage roads to bypass freeway traffic knows it doesn't work. You may not be in bumper to bumper traffic but you don't save any time either.


Posted by CommuterfromTracy, a resident of another community
on Feb 4, 2009 at 1:22 pm

I am just positively thrilled that Pleasanton is building a crosstown freeway just like the Mission Boulevard connector that connects Interstate 680 to Interstate 880. I cheer a community that is willing to sacrifice its city streets to enable us that live in San Joaquin County get home faster.

Now I can use Mission Boulevard to hop from 880 to 680, and then use the new Pleasanton Stoneridge connector that will connect Interstate 680 to Interstate 580.

I can just exit off at Stoneridge and 680 and travel east all the way down to Vasco. If that gets backed up, I can always exit Sunol or Bernal and wind my way up First Street or Valley Avenue to get to Stoneridge. I can't wait. When will this be built? I want to send an announcement to my company.


Posted by 237corridorworker, a resident of another community
on Feb 4, 2009 at 1:43 pm

For CommuterfromTracy, there is too much traffic at 680 and Stoneridge to exit there and then you have to wind your way through that business park which is a pain with so many stop lights.

Believe me, once the Stoneridge freeway connector is built, the best route from 680 North to get to the 580 will be, to avoid the stoplights -

1. Exit Sunol Blvd and travel up First Street
2. At the big McDonalds at the intersection of Valley and Bernal and Stanley, make a LEFT on Valley Avenue
3. Travel down Valley Avenue and make a RIGHT on Kolln Avenue
4. When Kolln ends at Mohr Avenue, make a RIGHT and travel on Mohr for a block or so
5. Turn LEFT on Kamp Drive
6. Make a RIGHT on Stoneridge Drive and you can travel east as far as you want!!!

If that backs up, exit at Bernal and then make an immediate LEFT on Valley Avenue near the Fairgrounds sound.


Posted by Aghast, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 4, 2009 at 1:53 pm

To Tracy commuter... Come on, fess up. You are not a commuter from Tracy but some anti-SDE person parading as Tracy commuter. Your comments read like one who knows all too well the anti-SDE rhetoric.


Posted by Of Course "Tracy..." is fake, a resident of Downtown
on Feb 4, 2009 at 2:08 pm

Believe me, A real commuter dosen't advertise his "secret" routes!


Posted by Short Cut Seeker, a resident of another community
on Feb 4, 2009 at 2:10 pm

I was really mad when my favorite Castro Valley short cuts was closed off by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors back in 2005. I'm from Mountain House and once Stoneridge is opened up, I hope the traffic lights are timed so all of us can keep moving and not get backed up at all the redlights. Since the Castro Valley shortcut is closed, I'm glad I'll be able to make up the time by cutting through Pleasanton.

Know any shortcuts?
Commuters face longer waits as popular I-580 bypass closed
By Erin Sherbert
Record Staff writer
October 27, 2005 6:00 AM
Some Bay Area-bound commuters will have to find new shortcuts to get around the traffic backed up along Interstate 580.

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors decided earlier this month to close a popular commuter shortcut in Castro Valley to reduce the amount of commuter traffic spilling onto residential streets.

"The intent is to encourage people to stay on the freeway," said Seth Kaplan, chief of staff for Supervisor Nathan A. Miley, whose district includes Castro Valley.

The problem is not unique to Castro Valley. As freeways become more congested between San Joaquin County and the Bay Area, tens of thousands of commuters look for alternative routes on city and county roads to bypass highway traffic jams.

But such traffic is not only putting wear and tear on residential and rural roads, it is causing delays and traffic backups for local residents, officials say.

Mountain House resident Paolo Giusto says he is always looking for the best shortcut to get around traffic on I-580. Giusto knows he is not saving time by taking back roads all the way to the Pleasanton BART station, but he said he does it anyway.

If anything, it saves him the frustration of bumper-to-bumper traffic on the freeway, he said.

"Timewise, it doesn't make a difference," Giusto said. "But at least I am moving rather than being stuck on the freeway."

In Tracy, commuters account for as much as 30 percent of rush-hour traffic along 11th Street. But city officials say there are no plans right now to monitor traffic lights and deter commuters from using this street as a shortcut around Interstate 205.

Although it might get commuters off city streets, officials fear it would also inconvenience local residents, said Kul Sharma, Tracy's city engineer.

"That is a big concern," Sharma said.

In Castro Valley, when traffic gets backed up on I-580 or Highway 238, many commuters exit Strobridge Avenue, cut through the Baywood District and drive residential roads all the way through Hayward to the San Mateo Bridge, Kaplan said.

By year's end, Strobridge Avenue will become a one-way street, closed to westbound traffic. It will remain closed until improvements are made to relieve traffic jams, including the widening of Highway 238, Kaplan said.

The decision to close Strobridge isn't the first time a municipality has cracked down on commuter shortcuts. In Pleasanton, commuter traffic was so problematic along Vineyard Avenue that local residents were late bringing their kids to school, city officials said. As a result, the City Council decided to make green traffic lights short and scarce during peak commute hours, said Mike Tassano, Pleasanton's traffic engineer.

"If they know they are going to have to stop for who knows how long and 580 is not looking so bad, they are more inclined to sit on a slowly moving roadway then sit at a traffic signal," Tassano said.

But in Livermore, the city has an opposite approach. Instead of making commuters wait at traffic signals, city engineers timed the lights so commuters receive green lights all the way through the city, getting them in and out as quickly as possible, said Mohammad Pournia, Livermore's transportation manager.

"They are coming in, and there is no stopping it," Pournia said.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 4, 2009 at 3:08 pm

Pleasanton residents suffer just as much as commuters in surrounding communities because Stoneridge is currently a private cul-de-sac.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 4, 2009 at 3:23 pm

While everyone is busy at imagining anecdotes of Tracy and Mountain House commuters using Stoneridge, just imagine Staples Ranch as part of Livermore or Dublin, built according to how those cities like their developments. That'll be nice!


Posted by yomama, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 4, 2009 at 3:31 pm

I sure hope they don't make Stoneridge a through street, that would be horrible traffic for those of us who live off that street. Everyone would use it as a short cut to get to Livermore, it would end up being like Stanley Blvd. My neighbors and I are fighting hard against it!


Posted by Tim, a resident of Downtown
on Feb 4, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Didn't Dublin when Guy Houston was mayor turn down the Sharks Ice venue when that team wanted to put it in Emerald Park? To save our dying downtown, why not put the hockey rinks near Pleasanton Middle School downtown so that at least our downtown businesses will benefit from all the extra people and traffic. There is nothing near the Bernal exit off 680 but empty fields. I think such a massive traffic generator should be there. That way when they hold concerts in the hockey arenas, if it was put there, it would at least be close to downtown and help those struggling businesses in Pleasanton. I think the city has just forgotten about downtown. Putting the Sharks Ice arena way off near Livermore Airport will only bring more people to Livermore and Dublin shopping centers. Very sad.


Posted by June, a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Feb 4, 2009 at 4:01 pm

Leaders make decisions, and then there is Councilman Sullivan who just keeps postponing and continuing hearings. Its clear to our family that he wants to wear people down and push his own agenda. Staples and Stoneridge Dr. extension have been discussed, debated, and analyzed for years and its just plain ridiculous to say people didnt understand the hearing notice or purpose of the meeting last night. We support Staples Ranch development and the immediate Stoneridge Dr extension. Pleasanton AND Livermore residents (our friends and family who live to the east)need another route other than Santa Rita/Valley which is busy all the time, in all directions, including the weekends. And why? Because its the only west-east connection between our cities. Sure extending Stoneridge will get commuters from Hacienda Business Park and some I580 by-passers, but that's why the General Plan included it as early as 1986. So traffic would be distributed in the city during both peak and non-peak times as the surrounding areas developed. That is what will serve all of the residents and keep Hacienda a viable employment center.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 4, 2009 at 4:14 pm

The planned ice hockey facility is not an arena.


Posted by John, a resident of Downtown
on Feb 4, 2009 at 4:27 pm

yomama, writes:

... that would be horrible traffic for those of us who live off that street. ...My neighbors and I are fighting hard against it!

Sorry yomama but it's not just about you and your neighbors. It's an issue for the entire city as a whole, it's an issue for Staples Ranch, it's an issue for Livwermor and it'a an issue for Alameda County. In reality you and your neignbors are the least number of people affected.


Posted by Claire, a resident of Mohr Elementary School
on Feb 4, 2009 at 5:13 pm

We purchased a home at Stoneridge Place several years ago with full knowledge of the potential of a Stoneridge cut through. It was very clearly stated in our contract along with all the other negative impacts. We committed to purchase knowing we would have to live with the consequences. We're we the only ones being clued in? It's hard for me to believe folks made a decision to but near Stoneridge without knowing the issues involved. If so....shame on you!



Posted by Claire, a resident of Mohr Elementary School
on Feb 4, 2009 at 5:14 pm

We purchased a home at Stoneridge Place several years ago with full knowledge of the potential of a Stoneridge cut through. It was very clearly stated in our contract along with all the other negative impacts. We committed to purchase knowing we would have to live with the consequences. We're we the only ones being clued in? It's hard for me to believe folks made a decision to buy near Stoneridge without knowing the issues involved. If so....shame on you!



Posted by iwasthere, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 4, 2009 at 5:14 pm

Did anyone else notice that Staples Ranch wasn't the only item continued? Councilmember McGovern continued the appeal of Little Ivy School last night as well. She has to have continued as many items as Sullivan and is just as much an obstructionist.


Posted by John, a resident of Downtown
on Feb 4, 2009 at 5:27 pm

Sullivan did't continue the item, he terminated the meeting!


Posted by James, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 4, 2009 at 5:48 pm

For those of you who are deluding yourself and others that there is no the desire to cut-thru Pleasanton on the way to east Dublin, Livermore or Tracy I would suggest that you have not driven the route at commute hour, I drive it every night and the stoplights favor the southbound traffic (because they want to enable the Stoneridge shopping) and there a ton of people that exit @ Foothill and travel east on Stoneridge to a destination further east. With a Stoneridge extension we will be a whore (without being paid) for the East Dublin, Livermore & Tracy residents, is that what you want?


Posted by James, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 4, 2009 at 5:59 pm

So Claire, thank you for ability to judge others and assign blame for their housing choices based upon a plan that was in flux


Posted by June, a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Feb 4, 2009 at 6:01 pm

To 237corridorcommuter and tracycommuter - its obvious you are a Stoneridge Dr area resident just trying to get support by scaring a bunch of other neighborhoods into thinking they will have gridlock if Stoneridge is extended. I could say that we will drive down Stoneridge, turn onto Kamp and snake my way to Cameron and Martin and Mohr to Kolln when Santa Rita and Valley are backed up. But that would silly mean spirited. Frankly, I cant figure why people want Stoneridge Dr closed off as part of the Staples development. ALL the traffic going in has to turn around and come back 100% of the time.


Posted by Ruth, a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Feb 4, 2009 at 6:08 pm

Thank you Claire for being honest in stating the you had full disclosure of SToneridge extension when buying your home in that neighborhood. I'm sure everyone else there did too, but don't want their quiet little culdesac to disappear so are using the myth of "we were never told" as their defense. It an old argument that has had its day and won't fly any longer.


Posted by James, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm

Junes - Thank you for your God given attributes that allow you to know where others are living… I am sorry why you can't figure out why Pleasanton doesn't want still more cut-thou traffic (and all of it's associated heath and transportation isssues).


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 4, 2009 at 8:05 pm

To Valley & Kolln,

I'm just not understanding your point. Specifically, I'm having trouble comprehending your comparison of Kolln, a two-lane residential street lined with houses, with Stoneridge, a major four-lane arterial street lined with soundwalls and sidewalks set back from the curb.


Posted by John, a resident of Downtown
on Feb 4, 2009 at 8:22 pm

James,

What you crudely call being a whore is really just being part of the larger community as a whole. The Stoneridge neigborhood is not an island unto itself.

When the road is put through you'll see all the hysteria was unwarranted.


Posted by Jane, a resident of Avila
on Feb 4, 2009 at 9:10 pm

I didn't get a postcard from the city saying there was a meeting last night about Stoneridge drive being extended. I didn't see anything in the newspaper. Another one of those secret meetings I guess.


Posted by anonymous, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 4, 2009 at 9:12 pm

Maybe it's your mail carrier. Certainly, it was posted on the City's website!


Posted by Huh?, a resident of Valencia
on Feb 4, 2009 at 10:32 pm

I don't see anything but this on the website and the Pleasanton Weekly. I didn't get a card regarding constructing Stoneridge either and it isn't listed on the website. Here is what it says

Consider approval of Staples Ranch Development related
documents including the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), Environmental Findings, Statement of Overriding
Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the
Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan Amendment (Staples Ranch
Project), Rezoning/Pre-zoning of Staples Ranch Property to
the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District.


Posted by Sandra, a resident of Birdland
on Feb 4, 2009 at 11:34 pm

Why is no one concerned--at all--about the fact that a major thoroughfare with frazzled, rushing commuters will be going right by a playground next to Mohr (elementary) School, another school (Hacienda), a church, and a park?

What is going to happen when parents drive out of the street along Mohr School and turn left onto Stoneridge?

What about parents driving their children TO school?

WHY the city would put a school a stone's throw from a road they intend to make a major commuter artery is beyond me, but THEY DID.

Changing Stoneridge into a commuter road is a disaster waiting to happen: parents distractedly driving children to and from school crossing a street with commuters--talking on their hands-free cell phones-- rushing to and from work. There are after school activities, Friday night activities, evening meetings at the school.

I don't live in the area, but it's a matter of basic humanity to be concerned about the children at that school.

The pressure to build Stoneridge is so that there can be MORE businesses built in the Hacienda Business Park and so that the currently open land at the Staples Ranch can be built up. This will bring MORE traffic to Pleasanton. Stoneridge being extended is NOT to alleviate current traffic. Don't kid yourselves. It's so developers can build more, bring more traffic: they are REQUIRED to "mitigate" the additional traffic that their building will bring--and extending/expanding Stoneridge is their solution to that problem.


Posted by James, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 5, 2009 at 6:35 am

Perhaps we can make some money!!!!!

Commuter Shortcut Becomes Speed Trap
By Holly J. Wolcott
May 15, 1998 in print edition B-2

A high-speed shortcut for commuters on the city's east side became the long way to work Thursday for 44 drivers who were cited by police during an effort to nab speeders, authorities said.

The operation was held from 7 to 9 a.m. on Saticoy Avenue between Telegraph and Foothill roads. Ventura police officers fanned out on Saticoy and ticketed drivers for speeding, passing over double yellow lines and running stops signs, said Police Cpl. John Turner.

A majority of the tickets were given to drivers who exceeded the posted 25 mph limit on the narrow road. The area, which is primarily residential, also includes Woodside Linear Park.

Turner said the latest effort followed several unsuccessful attempts to get drivers to slow down. Police had posted more speed limit signs, restriped the road and deployed a radar trailer to chart drivers' speeds.

Saticoy, which has several feeder streets, has a history of speed complaints and collisions, Turner said.

Residents in the area have lauded police for their efforts and asked them to return regularly for additional enforcement efforts, Turner said.


Posted by just wondering, a resident of Birdland
on Feb 5, 2009 at 8:02 am

Sandra

If you really lived in Birdland you would know that:
Harvest park School and the Tennis Park are all on Valley Avenue.
Walnut Grove and Alisal Schools are just one block away(the same as Mohr School from Stoneridge)from Valley Avenue.
The Aquatic Center and the Sports Park and Gingerbread Preschool are just one block away from Valley Avenue.
Amador High School is Just a block and a half away from Valley.
Alisal and Amador also face Santa Rita Road.
All the the children in Birdland use all of the facilities.
Where is your concern for them.


Posted by Lucky Guy, a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Feb 5, 2009 at 9:07 am

Selfish people get their just rewards. Sullivan is a Pico protoge who introduced neighborhood vs. neighborhood politics to Pleasanton. This city likes recalls and referendums. How about throwing Sullivan out and get on with the communities business. If you have lived here awhile Stoneridge was always going to be a major arterial to Livermore. Hacienda Business Park, which incidentally helped finance a large part of the parks, school perks, city services etc., etc. that all of you selfish people enjoy should have built the road to Livermore before houses, schools etc. were built. It did not happen. People who bought houses there knew that Stoneridge was a possibility and now cry about it. Meanwhile the rest of town--Valley Avenue, Santa Rita, Downtown and beyond are affected in maximum fashion. We used to have a sense of community-now we have the "me, me, me" generation and a city council and city hall people who are all unimanginative. Community of Character---you are seeing it and it's tragic--but what we deserve.


Posted by Highland Oaks Resident, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 5, 2009 at 9:47 am

Hey Lucky Guy, those of us posting from Highland Oaks do not have a lot to lose with the Stoneridge extension. It does not affect our neighborhood. I have lived in the bay area all my life and watched many communities struggle with growth issues, some more successfully than others. I believe it is imperative that a thoughtful, thorough and unemotional look will serve this community best. I travel eastbound, I understand that this extension would make it easier for me. But I don't want to see it built if it compromises another neighborhood. I and my husband are 238 commuters and we know every short cut through Hayward, San Lorenzo, and San Leandro as do a lot of other people. Before 580 was built these were neighborhoods. Now there are speed bumps in the streets, concrete barrels, dead ends and one way traffic restriction that attempts to keep cut through traffic out of the neighborhoods. One of the best things about living in Pleasanton is that it "feels" safe and I think the development has been thoughtful. But to carelessly insist on throwing traffic from one side of the city to the other is irresponsible. The extension on Stoneridge needs to be considered from a safety and will being standpoint of the entire city not by just one point of view. I said it in an earlier post, until the construction out on 580/680 is finished and we see how that affects regional traffic, I believe it is best to look with caution at the Stoneridge extension. Incidently, the city council meeting the other night was on Staples Ranch not the Stoneridge extension. Calling Matt Sullivan an "obstructionist" is unfair. As an elected official he is responsible for representing a certain point of view whether you agree with him or not.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 5, 2009 at 9:59 am

There's a style of governing that sees Council members as the voice of individual neighborhoods. Another style sees Council members as administrators of the government of Pleasanton. In the first style, the interests of separate neighborhoods is placed above the interests of the whole of Pleasanton. In the second style, Council members are charged with making decisions in the interest of the greater citizenry. The first style is an easy method of leadership while the second style requires a true leader because the Council member needs to have the social skills necessary to get individuals to put aside their differences and individual interests for the benefit of all. When citizens stand up at Council meetings and ask Council members to take leadership and make the tough decisions, they are referring to what a leader of the second style does and requesting that someone takes up those reins.

The first style is generally reserved for much larger municipalities, like San Francisco, where they divide their city into districts and elect representatives from each district to their Council. Pleasanton, on the other hand, allows all citizens to elect people to all Council seats, including the Mayor seat. Therefore Council members are empowered by and represent ALL of Pleasanton, not individual neighborhoods. For certain Council members to then place the interests of single neighborhoods above those of the greater citizenry is a violation of the trust ALL of Pleasanton placed in them.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 5, 2009 at 10:01 am

"The extension on Stoneridge needs to be considered from a safety and will being standpoint of the entire city not by just one point of view."

I recommend you take a drive down Stoneridge to the dead end. You will notice the various safety considerations already taken. For example, look at the sound walls. Look at the lack of house fronts lining the street. Check out the canal with nice landscaping on one side for about half the length of the road. Check out the wide lanes and the big island in the middle. This is not a residential neighborhood in Hayward.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 5, 2009 at 10:17 am

The issue of the Stoneridge extension is what got me interested in following local politics. Let me refresh in memory some of what went on in the past. In a meeting with Stop Pleasanton Gridlock, all Council members, whether commited or not, indicated that they would be "guided by the traffic impacts on the entire city, rather than the effects on any particular neighborhood." In April of 2007, the City released the results of a new traffic study that looked at traffic impacts both 1) if Stoneridge extension were built and 2) if it wasn't built. Now allow me to cut and paste the summary results pointed out in an old email by Stop Pleasanton Gridlock:

* Keeping the Stoneridge extension in the General Plan - this study confirms that extending Stoneridge Drive is good for the City of Pleasanton and will:
** "Result in a significant redistribution of traffic volume, which provides relief on Hacienda Drive, Santa Rita Road, and Valley between SR and Busch. Further, " It also reduces the delay at most intersections."
** Importantly, it does this without significantly increasing cut-through traffic in Pleasanton, which was an early concern of the council. In fact, "total cut-through trips on Santa Rita and Stanley are reduced." The cut though on Stoneridge is minimal " at only 10%".
** The traffic report supports the reason why Stoneridge has been in the plan for over 20 years - to provide a critical arterial between Pleasanton and Livermore for people who live and work in Pleasanton (especially NE area).
* Eliminating any roadway changes that would increase traffic loads on Santa Rita/Valley Ave, which is already in a crisis situation. This includes insuring El Charro is not extended to Busch/Valley, especially if Stoneridge is not extended.
* Deferring development in areas that are already in crisis situations.

See "GENERAL PLAN WORKSHOP DISCUSSION ON THE RESULTS OF
GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC MODELING WITHOUT AND WITH THE
STONERIDGE DRIVE EXTENSION" Web Link


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 5, 2009 at 10:21 am

Even more fun from old Stop Pleasanton Gridlock emails:

"congestion at Santa Rita and Valley will be 60% worse than today if Stoneridge Drive is removed from the General Plan and not extended in the future."

"Residents in neighborhoods across 7 miles of the city will have less congestion (vs. the 1 mile dead end Stoneridge Drive which will share the load)."

"Peak hour commutes on most key roads in the city will be better off "

"Safety will improve for pedestrians (our kids) and drivers"

And my favorite:
"90% of the traffic on the extension would be LOCAL Pleasanton traffic."


Posted by Lucky Guy, a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Feb 5, 2009 at 10:25 am

Hey Highland Oaks Sullivan neighbor--I agree council members should represent all sides. Sullivan has not been in my neighborhood to see what Valley does and he doesn't appear to be representing my neighborhood. And he should not just represent one neighborhood, any one neighborhood--he was elected to represent the whole city. He should see eastbound Valley Avenue at 4ish--takes about 15 minutes to get to Safeway, longer on Fridays. He is/has been a longtime supporter of the Stoneridge neighborhood--that is where his longtime former Planning Commissioner buddy Arkin lives and where how he got some votes. You are lucky to live in a neighborhood unaffected by Stoneridge, you bought wisely. You do have your West Las Positas/Foothill High and Lydicksen issues however and Matt sure has tackled that traffic issue, hasn't he?...As for safety, right now you cannot get a fire engine down Stoneridge traveling eastbound at 5 P.M. to help Station 3 at Santa Rita and West Las Positas or an engine from Livermore when needed by the freeway at 5P.M. The Stoneridge connection would get fire engines responding in two directions I believe. Lastly, you are confused as I am not the one who called Matt an obstructionist, just someone who prescribes to neighborhood vs. neighborhood politics...or in this case one neighborhood versus the city type politics. I think we might find common ground and agree that we do need leadership and seem not to have that right now in our city government types or council.


Posted by ?, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2009 at 10:26 am

OK Stacey, who do you work for? What are you doing here? What do you want with me?


Posted by HIghland Oaks Resident, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 5, 2009 at 10:49 am

Lucky Guy - sorry I know that wasn't you. Just to clarify I do not know Matt Sullivan personally. I think you bring some excellent points here. And yes we have had and do have our traffic issues. And let me say that Jerry Thorne did come out and stand at the corner of West Las Positas and Muirwood and formed an opinion about the situation here. Surely all the council members should probably do as you suggest observe the situation you discribe. Then they should all head out to 580 at both ends of the commute and try to determine how much of that standstill traffic might end up on Pleasanton city streets seeking an east or westbound alternative. No one has a crystal ball here, but if too many additional cars come from that mess then it is not going to help the other side of town at all. I also don't feel like bashing the city council, any of them, whether they agree with me or not. Please understand my position to be cautionary, not an automatic rejection of the proposed extension. The real effects of cut through traffic are like flood waters, when the main artery gets too full the water seeks another course.

Stacy - name calling is nasty, divisive and certainly doesn't add to civil discourse and problem solving.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 5, 2009 at 10:51 am

"Calling Matt Sullivan an "obstructionist" is unfair. As an elected official he is responsible for representing a certain point of view whether you agree with him or not."

As an official elected by ALL of Pleasanton he is responsible for representing ALL of Pleasanton. So one would hope that the "certain point of view" he holds is for the benefit of ALL of Pleasanton, whether individual neighborhoods agree with that or not.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 5, 2009 at 10:54 am

I wrote, "Obstructionist" comes to mind. Where have I written that Sullivan is an obstructionist? Misreading what people wrote also doesn't add to civil discourse.


Posted by June, a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Feb 5, 2009 at 11:22 am

James in Highlands - I do want more cross-town traffic routes on the major arterial roadways like Stoneridge because that is good long-range and sensible community planning. You call it negatively cut-through but that is precisely why Stoneridge was constructed to a full arterial street design standard and by the way designed to take more capacity than Valley, or Vineyard for that matter. You say I dont understand health and transportation issues because I disagree with you. You must think everyone else is "the problem" (aka the evil doers of Livermore, Dublin, Pleasantonians who want Stoneridge Drive) and really, everybody else driving on your streets). You do honestly think you never contribute to traffic yourself and everyone else is here just to impact YOUR quality of life.


Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on Feb 5, 2009 at 12:08 pm

No matter which side of the Stoneridge Drive extension (SDE) you come out on, every single Pleasantonian should be saying "NOT IN MY TOWN" to a Council majority that hides a decision it plans on making under the umbrella of another meeting item purpose. It's a question of ethics, not of when Stoneridge Drive is extended!

There was absolutely no mention in either the "Notice of Public Hearing" or in the volumes of material associated with Item 10 on the February 3, 2009 City Council Agenda of making a decision on the SDE in conjunction with the approval of the Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan to include the Staples Ranch project. In fact, all of the documentation continued to reference an emergency access only bridge on Stoneridge Dr. at Staples Rance Drive.

The decision on the timing of the SDE will undoubtedly be made sooner rather than later. There was absolutely no reason for the Council majority to hide the fact that they planned on making this decision February 3. It's strictly a question of ethics!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 5, 2009 at 12:48 pm

Rae,

I guess you didn't hear what any of the citizen speakers at the Council meeting were saying. No one there seems to be fooled into thinking that Staples Ranch and the Stoneridge extension are separate items. Any Staples Ranch topic that comes up at Council will invariably lead to extension discussion. LAFCO will never consider allowing the annexation of Staples Ranch to Pleasanton if the extension is not built. Perhaps the problem is due to City government's constant kowtowing to vocal minorities with only selfish interests in mind by making these issues separate items. The City should just stop fooling around and put out notifications and documentation with the extension in it. Traffic is the number one issue in Pleasanton and this results in speakers at the Council meetings wanting Council to do something about it. Of course, that's politics. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.


Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on Feb 5, 2009 at 1:02 pm

Stacey,
I refuse to get into a discussion with you or anyone else on this board about the right, wrong or timing of the SDE. I watched the meeting on TV. I've read the material; all of it. Living in the Mohr Park area, I'm also very well aware of this issue and have been for years. My point is that if the SDE decision is going to be made, there is absolutely no reason to hide that fact. Just document it, deal with the public comment, and make the decision. It is unethical to handle it any other way.


Posted by Another Gatetree Resident, a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Feb 5, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Here's a concept. Rather than bitchin' about a lack of cut-through routes to shorten someone's commute, why not work with your employers to telecommute? It's like getting a raise! No gas expense, no wear and tear on your vehicle, and most certainly a better quality of life.

Consider this -- if your employer can outsource work to India, why can't they let you work from your homes?

Win-Win for everyone!


Posted by James, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 5, 2009 at 4:04 pm

June – I understand the desire to minimize the cut-though traffic in Pleasanton, but when you say "You call it negatively cut-through but that is precisely why Stoneridge was constructed to a full arterial street design standard" it appears that this is an endorsement of cut-through traffic. If we want (for the good of the community) less cut-through traffic, why would we endorse a highway modification that increases cut-through traffic? I believe that Stoneridge was designed to support the Pleasanton community i.e. support the businesses in Pleasanton, not enable 580 commuters to by-pass the traffic.


Posted by ?, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2009 at 4:16 pm

WHAT A DORK....just to be clear, I'm talking to you James. It almost sounds like you think that Pleasanton roads are for Pleasanton residents only. I will let you in on a little known secret. People like to avoid 580 and cut through Pleasanton, SHhh! Don't tell anyone.
If you want to make Pleasanton easier to drive through for the residents, then you have to try to make all of the 'cut through' traffic stick to the two or three roads they need. Why stop NOW, stoneridge was meant for this. Traffic around town will be MUCH BETTER when the commuters can hurry out of town on these specific roads.
OR...we can close the boarders and check residency of all people trying to enter Pleasanton....as James has implied.


Posted by anonymous, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2009 at 4:50 pm

Anytime Mr. Sullivan sees that the meeting is going in a way that is contrary to his opinion, he screams notification, or delays it. Mr. Carroll sent out numerous emails to his list asking people to show up and they didn't.


Posted by James, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 5, 2009 at 5:21 pm

So, ? Thanks for the name-calling J. To be clear, Pleasanton pays for the roads in Pleasanton. I would argue that the reasoning for the extension was not to improve the cut-through traffic, but to enable by the traffic through Pleasanton that would be a result of the increased employment by Pleasanton residents.


Posted by James, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 5, 2009 at 5:21 pm

So, ? Thanks for the name-calling J. To be clear, Pleasanton pays for the roads in Pleasanton. I would argue that the reasoning for the extension was not to improve the cut-through traffic, but to enable by the traffic through Pleasanton that would be a result of the increased employment by Pleasanton residents.


Posted by James, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 5, 2009 at 5:32 pm

So if as you state: "I believe that Stoneridge was designed to support the Pleasanton community i.e. support the businesses in Pleasanton, not enable 580 commuters to by-pass the traffic." why would you support the obvious enablement of 580 cut-through traffic?


Posted by Explorer, a resident of Mission Park
on Feb 5, 2009 at 7:39 pm

I was at the council meeting. The Council meeting was to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). That is pretty clear in all the materials. If you read the EIR, one possibility that was explored, was the impact of the second bridge and the extension of Stoneridge Drive. When Matt saw that, to his horror, the EIR might be going to gain the majority vote, he pushed out the agenda item. John Carroll & his other organizers sent out emails to their supporters, in advance of the meeting, so a lot of people knew about this meeting. They were supposed to wear red shirts. Only one red shirt was there as the opposition, John Carroll. There were some other red shirts, including a lady who is a proponent of CLC, and wants to live there. She looked nice in red. The Chamber Chair had on a red shirt and she, as a Chamber spokesperson, is clearly a SDE & Staples Ranch proponent. She looked great in red. If you have been on 580 since the metering lights have come on, traffic clogs in some places, however generally flows better. Our traffic engineer can tailor the lights on Stoneridge Drive to annoy any cut through. Look was the previous engineer did that backed up traffic onto 680 at Arlington & Sunol. Funny thing, that turned out to be mainly Pleasanton residents trying to get home, so the CHP demanded it be changed. Lots of angry Pleasantonians stuck trying to enter their city. Point being, there are lots of ways to control traffic on Stoneridge Drive. Computerized signals are fairly flexible. For $6 Million dollars that the county will support the extension, does it make fiscal sense not to build the extension? Does it make sense to lose Staples Ranch to another city? Without the extension, the county can turn to other cities to annex the land. Maybe Hendricks Auto can live with "Livermore Valley Wine Group Auto" and capitalize on the wine appellation, and be in Livermore or Dublin. The CLC community will be a great addition! My mother has friends living in one of their communities in Carlsbad - they love it! Moved from a big house in Marin. They were thrilled to give up the hassels of maintenance, driving, cooking every night dinner, instead, their social live has greatly improved! Pleasanton, and nearby cities, will have a community catering to active seniors, and the other stages of life, as one of the supporters said (I think) "Waiting for Heaven". No development project satifies all. That's why it is such a public process. Lots of meetings, notices, discussion. This is a great project for Pleasanton, let's not give it to Dublin or Livermore. This freeway frontage will be develped, the question is by which city? The price of the land will be the least expensive part. The tax revenue, diversity of offerings, will be a great addition to Pleasanton. A portion of those moving into CLC will be selling homes to buy their new home, another source of revenue for the City (transfer taxes), stepped up values for property taxes, etc. Also, no development has been approved, it all has to go through the planning process & expense. There are many issues before anyone turns a key in a lock to open a door in Staples Ranch.


Posted by HJ, a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Feb 5, 2009 at 10:35 pm

I look forward to the SDE. It will save everyone time and money when traveling to friends in Livermore or patronizing local business. Can you imagine not having a direct route to Staples Ranch, which is suppose to be in Pleasanton. Imagine what it will be like if we don't take advantage of this opportunity. There will be more traffic on SDE because they have zero traffic right now but if a police officer is placed at the corner of El Charo and SDE during commute hours, traffic mitigation efforts will be obeyed. Let's face it folks, we already have cut through traffic now. Perhaps taking the lead San Francisco is considering and using Fast Trak devices to charge for cutting through would reduce the amount of cutthru traffic

In summary, SDE is a good thing that will centralize traffic to major arteries and reduce the amount of traffic that cuts through neighborhoods. It will save all Pleasanton residents time, fuel, and agravation.

Thank you.


Posted by Alan, a resident of Stoneridge
on Feb 6, 2009 at 7:56 am

Gee, I am really looking forward to the great opportunity of having to drive out to the freeway and go through the metering lights everytime I want to get my car serviced "in town" at the new auto plaza or to drop my son off at the to be built ice rink or to access the new shopping center. This when I can drive less than 2/10 of a mile from my house. I am pretty sure I remember seeing a four lane divided roadway on East Stoneridge when I was house shopping to think boy that is a great way to access my neighborhood at a dead end. I am going to love living at the end of that court.

Lets go back to the whole jeopardize millions of dollars in tax revenue when the County decides not to allow the annexation as has been mentioned because a minority of people in my own neighborhood don't want the road to ever go through. With the economy a long way off from recovery and the cities and county facing huge cutbacks, it really makes sense to reintroduce giving away that property to Dublin, Livermore, or worse yet Alameda County keeping it unincorporated and keeping the new tax money themselves. And when the entire proposal is changed to high rise high density housing over our backyards? Boy that is going to be swell.

If you don't think those other cities and the county are starting to look at the money potential and to pounce if Pleasanton slips up again on a development plan? You are fooling yourself. And I am sure the Pleanton School District was not interested in any of those developer fees anyways. We didn't need those smaller classes for our children, the new building on campus or those couple extra teachers anyways.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 6, 2009 at 9:20 am

"or to drop my son off at the to be built ice rink or to access the new shopping center. This when I can drive less than 2/10 of a mile from my house."

Before someone tells Alan to ride a bike, I'd like to point out the size and weight of a hockey bag fully loaded with all the gear, plus the unwieldiness of carrying two hockey sticks on a bike. If certain vocal minorities would like to continue the NIMBY selfishness parade, there are those of us who can be equally selfish.


Posted by Explorer, a resident of Mission Park
on Feb 6, 2009 at 10:30 am

Maybe the developer fees from Oak Grove & Staples Ranch would off-set the need for a parcel tax too. Pleasanton voters took away the potential fees from the Bernal property opting to make it another park.


Posted by lil kid mom, a resident of Mohr Park
on Feb 6, 2009 at 10:36 am

how about trying to get home to pick up children from elementary school you get stuck on 580 and the ONLY way to get to them is 20 EXTRA minutes- when you have to go ALL THE WAY AROUND- down Stanley - up Valley then wind your way in -it would just be easier for us to get home too.
Smarten up people - we all know the road had plans to go through.


Posted by Concerned, a resident of Danbury Park
on Feb 6, 2009 at 10:55 am

Too many voters had the wool pulled over their eyes when it came to Matt Sullivan. Too bad for the community at large to have him on the Council. He needs to remove himself from any further discussion on Staples Ranch & the Stoneridge extension until such time he can be objective. He action display a "Conflict of Interest". The interest of HIS neighborhood coming 1st!


Posted by Chris, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2009 at 11:08 am

I find it strange that the proponents of the Stoneridge cut-through are, to a large degree victims of cut-through traffic in there neighborhood and that increasing cut–through traffic in another portion of the city takes it out of their back yard. Cut-through traffic in Pleasanton is a problem, moving it around the city is not the solution


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 6, 2009 at 11:10 am

Chris,

I'm not understanding you. Which other neighborhoods are you referring to and do they have roads designed to be major arterial streets running through them?


Posted by Seriously, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Feb 6, 2009 at 11:17 am

Explorer - well put...I don't think anyone can argue with your comments. It's obvious that SDE and Staples Ranch is beneficial to our community and our city council would be insane to hold up the process. Although our current encumbants have made some absolutely terrible decisions in the past(Home Depot on Stanley/Bernal for one), I would be suprized if they gave this one away.

To those of you who are against SDE, understand you are the minority and your arguments don't hold a candle to the benefits of the project.


Posted by westsider, a resident of Foothill High School
on Feb 6, 2009 at 11:45 am

dear 'concerned,' I'm not a big Matt Sullivan fan, but please check your facts: Matt does not live anywhere near the proposed Stoneridge Drive extension area. He lives on the west side of town, and the SDE area is not 'HIS neighborhood.'


Posted by Army of One, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2009 at 2:16 pm

SDE = Stacey Drive Extension


Posted by Claire, a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Feb 6, 2009 at 5:00 pm

Hi Chris,

Regarding shifting cut through traffic. A lot of people call commuters from Hacienda who are going home to Livermore as cut through, and i am not sure if you are are not. The city traffic engineers do not call this cutthrough as these are legitimate Pleasanton workers or residents going to Livermore who are forced today to use Valley to get home. If Stoneridge was extended, many could shift to using Stoneridge, which is many cases is shorter for them and reduces the number of miles driven on our Pleasanton streets. It is positive for the driver, the city, and the air as less miles traveled thru our city. We need more circulation as the jobs in Hacienda are unfortunately not going away and are only forecast to increase. We need to help folks get where they need to in shortest way possible and unfortunatley Valley cannot help any more as it already over capacity right now.

Unfortunately there will always be "bad" cut through to some degree (kind of like stores wil also need to deal with "theft." The good news is that with the signal timing restaints for Stoneridge, only a minimal number of cars can jump one and off (1000-1200 if i recall from the traffic engineer). Stoneridge was deisgned for thousands of cars/hour so most using it are "good" drivers we want to help as they live or work in our city.
Thanks for listening and do reach out to our traffic engineer for further info here as i think we can work together and get creative to minimize the bad cut through so our Stoneridge neighbors know that Stoneridge is serving the City.


Posted by Claire, a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Feb 6, 2009 at 5:00 pm

Hi Chris,

Regarding shifting cut through traffic. A lot of people call commuters from Hacienda who are going home to Livermore as cut through, and i am not sure if you are are not. The city traffic engineers do not call this cutthrough as these are legitimate Pleasanton workers or residents going to Livermore who are forced today to use Valley to get home. If Stoneridge was extended, many could shift to using Stoneridge, which is many cases is shorter for them and reduces the number of miles driven on our Pleasanton streets. It is positive for the driver, the city, and the air as less miles traveled thru our city. We need more circulation as the jobs in Hacienda are unfortunately not going away and are only forecast to increase. We need to help folks get where they need to in shortest way possible and unfortunatley Valley cannot help any more as it already over capacity right now.

Unfortunately there will always be "bad" cut through to some degree (kind of like stores wil also need to deal with "theft." The good news is that with the signal timing restaints for Stoneridge, only a minimal number of cars can jump one and off (1000-1200 if i recall from the traffic engineer). Stoneridge was deisgned for thousands of cars/hour so most using it are "good" drivers we want to help as they live or work in our city.
Thanks for listening and do reach out to our traffic engineer for further info here as i think we can work together and get creative to minimize the bad cut through so our Stoneridge neighbors know that Stoneridge is serving the City.


Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on Feb 7, 2009 at 7:24 am

Those of you who want a look at what Pleasanton traffic engineers and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency believe the congestion delay will look like when Staples Ranch is developed with Stoneridge Dr extended should take a look at the city's response to LAFCo (Item 16 on the Staples Ranch document list) dated July 18, 2008.

Web Link

Look at the set of charts that are on the last 4 pages of that document. These charts have nothing to do with whether traffic is cut-through or not. It's just traffic and the service levels.

Of course, the Stoneridge Dr. extension has the most impact during the PM peak commute going east. No surprise there. Notice that with a couple of exceptions, all Pleasanton intersections ("Project with Stoneridge Extension" column), either remain at a service level of "F" with increased delay, or become an "F". The exception is Hopyard & Stoneridge; it goes to an "E" or a "D" depending on whether or not the signals are timed. Notice that Santa Rita & Valley goes from an "E" to an "F" without timing, and remains an "E" with higher delay with timing.

The I580 Pleasanton ramps remains an "F" in almost all cases, AM or PM peak periods. The exceptions being Hopyard, Las Positas and Santa Rita. Those are either a "D" or an "E".


Posted by Just Wondering, a resident of Birdland
on Feb 9, 2009 at 9:00 am

I happened to watch a very long repeat of last weeks city council meeting with 2 items on the agenda. I was dumb founded to see Cindy McGovern pull one of the items at the beginning of the meeting and then watch Matt Sullivan cancel the other item sometime around 11:00PM after about 3 1/2 hours of discussion on the item. What a waste of everyone's time, money and energy. Maybe these 2 need to figure out how to come to these meetings prepared to make decisions or find another hobby. Shame on both of them.


Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on Feb 10, 2009 at 9:53 am

Just Wondering,
You, and many others on this blog, are missing the point of Councilmember Sullivan's continuance of Agenda Item 10 at last Tuesday's Council Meeting. Not only was he well within his rights to call for a continuance, it would have been unethical for the Council to move forward on a decision to extend Stoneridge Dr. under the stated agenda item.

Item 10 was noticed and agendized to "Consider approval of Staples Ranch Development related documents including the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Environmental Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan Amendment (Staples Ranch Project), Rezoning/Pre-zoning of Staples Ranch Property to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District". There was nothing in the associated documentation about making a decision on the extension of Stoneridge Dr.

In fact, the Staff Report for Item 10 stated specifically "the overarching policy of when Stoneridge Drive would be extended has not been fully resolved and will continue to be an issue throughout the remainder of the planning process. Accordingly if the Council is interested in reviewing these issues including the addressing of regional transportation objectives, Supervisor Haggerty proposal, LAFCo concerns, environmental issues, and resident comments, staff recommends the Council call for a special meeting at which time these issues would be discussed in further detail".

Councilmember Sullivan rightly realized from comments that the Council majority was moving towards including discussion and approval of the Stoneridge Dr. extension under the guise of approving the Staples Ranch EIR.

The decision on the timing of the SDE will undoubtedly be made sooner rather than later; there was absolutely no reason to hide the fact. Just agendize it, deal with the public comment, and make the decision. It is unethical to handle it any other way, and shame on a Council majority that tried.


Posted by June, a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Feb 10, 2009 at 12:31 pm

Westsider -While sitting together on the Planning Commission, both Matt Sullivan & Brian Arkin worked for years under the radar screen during the countless workshops and meetings regarding the General Plan Update to remove the SDE. You are right, Sullivan doesnt live in the Stoneridge Dr. Area, he lives in Highlands BUT he also wanted the West Las Positas Interchange removed from the GPU also, so do you now get the connection between the two neighborhood coalitions? And BTW, the GPU public meeting notices for yeeeeears NEVER identified that major changes to the City's transportation plan were being made. It was only when the rest of the City woke up and found out that the all-inclusive community wide dialogue occurred.


Posted by westsider, a resident of Foothill High School
on Feb 14, 2009 at 2:07 pm

June, please read my post again. I referenced 'concerned' and his/her comment about Matt Sullivan representing 'his' neighborhood only and that he should recuse himself from Stoneridge Drive discussions. That made no sense then, and it makes no sense now. Matt Sullivan DOES NOT live in the SDE area. That's the point I was trying to make, I guess unsuccessfully.


Posted by June, a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Feb 18, 2009 at 6:58 pm

Westsider - I know Sullivan does not live in the SDE area. I agree, why would he recuse himself. He does not own property in the SDE area(I assume that would be legally required to be disclosed by now if he did). Thus no direct financial impact to suggest grounds that a conflict of interest exists. My point to think about here is that there is the appearance of political quid pro quo. Westside/Highlands (Sullivan) gets West Las Positas Interchange removed from the General Plan. BTW, another dumb idea, but a done deal for now. SDE (Arkin) gets darn close to a SDE removal from the General Plan. Both spear-head their neighborhood interests with mutual support from each other. Quid pro quo. Just something to think about


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

David Brooks at his Best – and Worst
By Tom Cushing | 11 comments | 953 views

Anti-fracking folks rail against railroads
By Tim Hunt | 34 comments | 876 views

Spedowfski Announces run for Livermore City Council
By Roz Rogoff | 1 comment | 601 views