Council OKs Stoneridge Drive extension to Livermore Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Pleasanton Weekly Online, on Feb 25, 2009 at 8:16 am
The City Council voted 3-2 Tuesday night to approve the extension of Stoneridge Drive as a four-lane thoroughfare to El Charro Road and Livermore, completing one of its final policy decisions in after Staples Ranch, giving the green light to a multi-million-dollar commercial, recreational and residential development on the now-vacant 124-acre Staples Ranch property.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 7:57 AM
Posted by Long time Pleasantonian, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 8:18 am
Finally! And the real question is for Kay: Why would YOU put the community through another referendum debate? You can simply choose to acknowledge that a majority is half, plus one. It means that up to half minus one do not agree. There are many of us that have long awaited this necessary extenstion.
Enough already, let's move forward on our 20 year old decision.
Posted by Matt Morrison, a resident of the Pleasanton Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 8:51 am
To clarify - The Sierra Club was objecting only to the certification of the EIR, not Stoneridge Drive extension. Furthermore, while the Sierra Club of course has the option of either joining or supporting a lawsuit over the Staples Ranch environmental documents, the Sierra Club would not initiate legal action in this case.
Posted by Tim, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Feb 25, 2009 at 8:57 am
I watched the meeting on television last night and was impressed with the amount of passion Pleasanton residents show on this issue. I can understand some residents wanting to keep their entire neighborhood a giant cul-de-sac (who wouldn't?), but it's time to do what's best for all of Pleasanton. Staples Ranch will one day be an important part of Pleasanton (and not Livermore, thank goodness!) and pushing Stoneridge Drive through is the only logical way to make this happen. The deal is finally done, so rather than dragging this on for several more years, it'd be nice to see some of that passion put into another worthy cause, like helping our schools at a time when they really need it.
Posted by It's Time, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 9:04 am
Long time Pleasantonian: Well said!
Kay - The citizens of Pleasanton have spoken on this issue for years. It is time.
Your "side" lost this time. My views have been on the loosing side many times in my 25 years here in Pleasanton.
Take it from someone that has supported you in the past....You will not be serving this community well if you continue on with referendums, lawsuits, etc.
The referendum process is becoming a joke. A person or group does not get their way, so let's start a signature gathering process. Not every decision is going to go your way. It's not as if the city's residents have not already had their say. Years of discussions, votes by councils, planning meetings, council meetings open to the public, etc., etc.……and finally - a decision.
Get over it and look forward and move on to other issues that confront this city, that have not yet been decided.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 9:09 am
I think the EIR issue was worthy of concern. However, I felt that Mr. Sullivan was trying to use it as a possible delaying tactic for the Stoneridge extension rather than for a true concern over the EIR.
With the full extension on the table now, the correct placement of the Ice Center near the retail center and further away from the arroyo can be freely considered. This will help greatly! The Ice Center is a draw for the retail center and will encourage commerce. Also, being placed away from the arroyo will allow more public access to the arroyo and a decreased possibility of the arroyo becoming a gutter for a parking lot.
Posted by will,27 year resident, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 9:45 am
The City Council took the appropriate action last night. Everyone on all sides of the issue were heard from and a decision made. I do wonder however, why when our elected leaders do what we elected them to do, some people talk of lawsuits and referendums?
Posted by Jim, a member of the Donlon Elementary School community, on Feb 25, 2009 at 9:55 am
Finally looks like the developers paid off the voters. Jennifer fliped on this. Now we will have a great cut through for the commuters and the developers will build a bigger home for themselves on our ridge.
Posted by Another long time Pleasanton Resident, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 10:01 am
I can't imagine this happening! The image of Pleasanton as a controlled growth town has just gone south like the entire country! Money, Money and Money! I will sign the petition for a referendum! For those who don't like it, tough! It's like Proposition 8. It's the right of every American citizen to have his/her voice heard!
BTW, I have found that the City Council has always had their mind made up and I am not sure what the purpose of the hearing is anymore... Look at the facial expression of the the Mayor when she welcome the supporters of the extension and those who opposed. It's obvious it was a futile effort. Onwards to the courts and the referendum!
Posted by Resident, a member of the Mohr Elementary School community, on Feb 25, 2009 at 10:11 am
It is sad that our city council has ignored the people who overwhelmingly disapproved SDE at yesterday's meeting and sided with Pleasanton chamber of commerce. We should also rename the city Businesston. While the world is talking about green we are going RED!!
Posted by Cindy Cook, a member of the Mohr Elementary School community, on Feb 25, 2009 at 10:38 am
Shameful decision by the majority of the council. No due process for the residents who were robbed of the long-negotiated MOU in a three-week power grab by developers. COMMUNITY OF CHARACTER? What does it mean when you negotiate, AND SIGN YOUR NAME to an agreement? Apparently NOTHING once somebody walks in with deep pockets. We know darned well that Jerry Thorne is just a puppet of big money outsiders; we've known that since PG&E got him elected the first time. But Jennifer? Jennifer Hosterman used to be grass-roots and pro-community. Now she has hired herself a political consultant and apparently has her eyes on her next political office. She needs the backing of Scott Haggerty and the surrounding cities for that. GOOD BYE Pleasanton - Hello the BIG TIME. Is Pleasanton now located in Illinois? Looks like time for a recall.
Posted by Bruce, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 10:48 am
Seems like most of the comments are in favor of the majority vote of the council. Must mean that most of the residents are in favor of it, too. I know I am. Maybe if we could have frozen time back in the sixties when land was plentiful and most of the town was undeveloped, this wouldn't be an issue today. But the residents of this beautiful city decided that growth was inevitable and did a great job of planning for future growth. The businesses moved here so people wouldn't have to commute anymore, and life was great. We had planned for West Los Positas interchange and Stoneridge to be extended and then people bought new houses next to these projects, knowing full well that they were planned. Now, all of a sudden, the plan is bad because it might impact a few people adversely, who were aware that it was planned. If you think that the Council has done so poorly, why don't you run and see how many votes you get. I bet it would be very close to the same ratio as the vote to extend Stoneridge. GET OVER IT. You lost. Try to work on making something happen on the rest of the transportation issues facing Pleasanton.
Posted by Tom, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 10:54 am
Congratulations Council. You finally made the right decision. Jennifer did a great job in explaining her change in position, I am so proud to have her as our Mayor. Cheryl and Jerry did a great job on the motion to support. I was not surprised by Matt's position. I was very disappointed in his unprofessional remarks after he lost.
He acted like a little kid the got mad playing marbles and losiing and grabbing all his marble and went home. He is an obstructionist on the Council.
Posted by Judy Person, a resident of the Pleasanton Valley neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 10:54 am
A lawsuit is mean and unsuitable for this excellent decision. I've lived here for 38 years, and worked in the library for 25, keeping the local documents, and Stoneridge extension has been on the books for almost all of that time. Kay, Matt, Cindy, and the Stoneridge residents should just suck it up. I live just off Black, between 5 schools, the swimming pool and the post office. I see plenty of traffic. Give a thought to those who came before, whose Eden-like existence has been disrupted by us. My last message said open the on and off ramps at Las Positas, and that Las Positas should have been the one to go through, but I forgot to add that Park should have gone through to Santa Rita. We don't live in a tiny village anymore, let's be civil and enjoy what we have.
Posted by yomama, a resident of the Amador Estates neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 11:41 am
I'm glad I don't live off Stoneridge, traffic sure is going to suck for those poor residents. I guess traffic is going to suck for anyone trying to get down Santa Rita, Hacienda or Hopyard since traffic will be exiting there to get to Stoneridge so they can go home to Livermore, Tracy and beyond.
Posted by Mark Hitesman, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 11:41 am
I have lived in Pleasanton for 44 years. I have seen lots of changes over the years and this is another one of those that is in the best intrest of ALL of Pleasanton. The council finally made the right decision after all these years. Get over it and accept it. It is BEST for ALL of Pleasanton.
Posted by Concerned Pleasanton Family, a resident of the Ironwood neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 11:57 am
As 40 year residents, we are happy to finally see this long-planned for project become a reality with the extension of Stoneridge. So glad to see Mayor Hosterman act in the best interests of all of the residents of the City, not the no-growth, lawsuit/referendum threatening bunch out to vote no on everything, regardless of its benefit to the entire City. We elect our council to represent us. We shouldn't have to (or want to) have the citizens vote on everything. Let the people studying the issues and elected to vote on them do their job. If you don't like it, vote to throw them out next time. Thank you Mayor Hosterman and Council Members Cook-Kallio and Thorne for acting on behalf of the majority.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 12:16 pm
"The vast majority of people who will use the stoneridge extenstion will be residense of Livermore, Tracy and beyond. "
And so will Pleasanton residents. Most speakers last night omitted this fact and instead bogged themselves down with numbers from various traffic studies. Those numbers are important to help make an informed decision (and no, they didn't show who the "vast majority" will be), but not the end-all-be-all.
Staples Ranch must be developed as a project that benefits Pleasanton. Putting an EVA gate in is tantamount to saying, "We don't care about Pleasanton residents, we just want the tax revenue."
Posted by George, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 12:20 pm
The Chamber of Commerce and big business win again. I'll bet none of those folks live in the areas to be impacted. Hmmm, Ruby Hill or Castlewood residents probably won't hear the traffic noise or wait at the lights for the additional traffic. Why not put it to a public vote when our elected officials can be converted from protecting our neighborhoods to serving special business interests and sacrificing the quality of life for some neighborhoods?
Posted by Claire, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Thank you to the Council majority for finally making this tough decision.
As a long time Pleasanton resident, i want the ability to drive to our new Staples Ranch park and business center without having to take a longer detour onto the freeway. It is just not fair to have the Stoneridge road we all pay for dead end to benefit just a few. Now we can all benefit from the road and isn't that what our roads are for.
I understand how the residents on Stoneridge Drive are disappointed as i don't want more traffic on my road either. I hope the City puts in mitigations to help insure most of the cars on Stoneridge are the right ones. We know this is doable as we have done in other areas.
THank you again to our leaders for making this important and necessary decision.
Posted by Craig, a resident of another community, on Feb 25, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I say to make my commute home (Tracy) even easier, let's open up Las Positas too. Have it go through to El Charro as well. This addition of Stoneridge really helps cover the problem that is 580 and 84... just sweep it under the rug.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Here's what happened. Sometimes a person goes through life being indecisive. Their decisions then tend to get made for them by others because the delay limits their future options. In the years of observing this issue, I saw this happen politically on a regional scale!
The City Council got its hands tied up. After years of delay, our regional partners in this traffic issue started to make decisions for Pleasanton. Option 2 would have been more ideal, but then the City would have had to be fiscally irresponsible to its taxpayers by walking away from the County money. Pleasanton got stuck with Option 3 because earlier delay on deciding whether to keep Stoneridge in our General Plan or not made our regional partners frustrated. They began tit-for-tat behavior. So yes, our neighbors and the County could be seen as forcing Pleasanton's hand, but Pleasanton has only itself to blame in this reaction to our indecisiveness.
Posted by Keep Opening, a member of the Alisal Elementary School community, on Feb 25, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Now it's time for Cook-Kallio, Thorne and Mayor Hosterman to show that issue of opening roads to ease traffic is more than just Stoneridge. I expect Cook-Kallio to lead the charge for opening of Kolln at Valley. If not, she would show that she, too, is fine with opening roads in other neighborhoods to easy traffic but not hers. This council must represent the entire community, not neighborhoods. Opening Kolln at Valley will ease traffic on Santa Rita and Valley. Make it happen. Open up the city, not just the area close to the freeway. Kolln at Valley being open was part of the city's general plan. Neighbors changed that in the 80's. You can't do to the Stoneridge community what you will not do to your own. Sad - this town should be one community - not a bunch of neigborhoods. If the council opens Kolln at Valley, I support the council's decision. If not, it is just another case of politics and cash for the City.
Posted by David, a resident of the Vineyard Avenue neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 12:58 pm
After years of discussion, debate and negotiation, our city council finally arrived at the correct, although difficult, decision. Timing is everything. And those who have opposed the SDE apparently came to the same realization (there wasn’t a single red shirt in the audience). Thank you Mayor Hosterman and Councilmembers Thorne and Cook-Kallio. It wasn’t that long ago a candidate couldn’t get elected if they supported the Stoneridge extension.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Keep Opening appears to be one of those who are unwilling to understand the difference between a residential road like Kolln, with driveways on it, from Stoneridge, a major arterial with neighborhoods and driveways tucked behind side streets.
Posted by Barry Cass, a resident of the Stoneridge neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Wow! What a night!
It's ironic that the ONLY transparent thing last night was the County's bribe and their extorsion effort.. There must be a ton of money to be made by those Develeopers. I want an investigation into the $6 million... Maybe Arnold and his group can help us out. It's obvious that we need to take this to a higher level.
The Mayor and her cronies sold out to the highest bidder! It was obvious that they had their minds made up. This is just like the W. BUSH bunch who ignored facts and just made up their own to get what they wanted.
What a sham that our Mayor didn't want a Citywide vote on this! It would give more time to dig into the Money changing hands...
As a Democrat, I will work hard against any effort for higher office of any of the Gang of 3..
We are ready for the next indicated step in this process..
Posted by Monty H, a resident of the Pleasanton Village neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Message to 580 commuters: "Come on down!" Last night we were treated to a standing-room only showing of The Price Is Right with the mayor in the role of Bob Barker.
Or was that Let's Make a Deal we were watching? Anyone with a good memory will remember that behind Door Number 3 - labeled Option 3 at last night's meeting - was where the producers often stashed the booby prize.
And so it will prove this time. Flawed EIRs, bait-and-switch tactics, and the pitting of neighborhood against neighborhood mean that we will all be left with a wheelbarrow full of coal come 2011. This will arrive in the form of poisoned air (goes well with a poisoned political environment), nightmarish traffic, an exponential increase in noise (it isn't just the cars, it's the music thumping out of the idling cars as well), and more crime. Don't get too attached to that car in your driveway, citizen.
So thanks, Mayor Hosterman! Thanks Jerry Thorne and Cheryl Cook-Callio. Thanks for letting us play in a real-life game show. We still get to pay taxes on all of our winnings, don't we?
Posted by Billie, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I got it. An arterial is like Valley which has its "neighborhoods and driveways tucked behind side streets" too. Makes you wonder why they've been complaining.
I guess we'll find out when Stoneridge Dr. is extended, and there is (according to traffic engineering data) 16% MORE traffic delay on Stoneridge than there is on Valley TODAY during the PM commute. Of course that assumes the signaling is timed. Without timing there will be 30% more.
Too bad there won't be any relief for Valley residents. Traffic delay on Valley during the PM commute will INCREASE by 7% when the lights are timed. At least I'm sure those residents hope signaling will be timed, since there is a 23% projected increase without timing. They won't even get a break in the AM since the level of service projected degrades from a "C" to a "D" with sligtly higher delay.
And too bad for Pleasanton that the Alameda County, Dublin and Livermore politicians keep playing games with SR84 widening prioritization and funding, since that's the one regional roadway project identified to actually relieve traffic THROUGHOUT Pleasanton.
And its really going to be too bad for anyone in Livermore with an emergency trying to bypass freeway congestion. There's no longer any plan for an EVA and all Pleasanton cross-town arterials will be even more congested than they are today.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to extending Stoneridge Dr. - when the other Tri-Valley agencies stop playing games with the one solution that would actually help ALL of Pleasanton. As it is, Pleasanton will continue to take the brunt of traffic looking for an easier way to get between the I-580 and I-680.
Posted by Ann, a resident of the Val Vista neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 3:00 pm
I have lived a block away from Stoneridge Drive for 31 years. And, while, of course, there has been an increase in traffic. There has also been an increase in traffic on the street where I live. And, those aren't folks from Tracy.
The Stoneridge extension not only finally gives residents an east/west alternative to Stanley, it also only makes sense to have the Staples Ranch facilities readily available as well. I am sorry that West Las Positas Blvd. (yes, the name is boulevard) was not connected to Livermore. I believe that the whole town has suffered as a result. But, to have not extended Stoneridge would have been to repeat bad history. I applaud the Council majority for recognizing this.
Now, we need to stop bickering and work together to get behind the I84 project.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Billie wrote: "And too bad for Pleasanton that the Alameda County, Dublin and Livermore politicians keep playing games with SR84 widening prioritization and funding, since that's the one regional roadway project identified to actually relieve traffic THROUGHOUT Pleasanton."
Are you suggesting that Alameda County, Dublin, and Livermore should prioritize and fund the widening of SR84 which only seems to benefit Pleasanton? What are they supposed to get out of the deal?
Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of the Stoneridge Park neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 3:15 pm
As an original owner whose home backs directly to Stoneridge Drive in Stoneridge Park, I'm happy with the decision of the city council. When I first looked at the neighborhood, anyone could see that Stoneridge drive with two lanes going each way was meant to go through to Livermore. That section of road is greatly under utilized, and very few residents observe the posted 35MPH speed limit. So throw a few more traffic lights up and I'll enjoy a shorter drive to Costco.
Posted by Nancy, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 3:29 pm
"Broken promises, meaningless MOUs, & Blood Money from the County.
Shameful! If broken campaign promises can be dismissed by a “change of mind”, can elected officials be as easily removed with the same?"
Looks like someone hasn't been paying attention. When that MOU was drafted the City Council had been clear that SDE was coming out of the general plan. Then, the election of Cook-Kallio who campaigned on keeping the SDE in the general plan. Mayor Hosterman in the last election, by the way this was November 2008, was pretty clear she supported the SDE. No surprises here.
Don't worry, you will all be able to voice your opinion in our next city election in November 2010. But keep in mind, majority still rules.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 4:01 pm
The MOU issue is a red herring. First, it was suggested by McGovern and then later picked up on by Sullivan that a policy statement would have the same weight as a contract. That's all fine and dandy until one realizes that contracts usually need to be executed within a timely manner. Waiting three years and possibly longer is not a timely manner by any means.
Posted by Billie, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Representatives from Alameda County, Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton & others sit on ongoing or special project transportation committees in the Tri-Valley. At a minimum, these representatives usually include County Supv. Haggerty and the Mayors (or representative).
They complete traffic studies, develop regional transportation and action plans, prioritize projects, and identify and/or pursue funding, or forward prioritized lists to organizations that can procure funding, and track progress.
The regional transportation plans developed included regional infrastructure (eg. I580, I680, SR84) as well as city arterials that have been deemed to be routes of regional significance (eg. Dublin Blvd, Fallon, El Charro, Jack London, Stanley, Stoneridge). Because the transportation/circulation plans are supposed to support the region, the committee members vote to prioritize projects both internal and external to a specific town. It's politics - you scratch my back and maybe I'll scratch yours.
For example, The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) was responsible for the "Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan" (July 2008). The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA), CALTRANs and Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA) commissioned the Tri-Valley Triangle Traffic Committee who developed the "Tri-Valley Triangle Traffic Study" in Sept 2007.
SR84 has been identified in each regional traffic study as an significant route that, if widened, would allow commuters to move much more easily between the 680 and the 580, thus relieving traffic not only on the 680 & 580, but in Pleasanton as well. It gives Livermore folks an easier way get to/from the 680. It frees up space on the 580 for Dublin residents living in those 12,000 units being built in the east Dublin hills.
Lockhart, Kamena and Haggarty specifically, have been part of various votes that, at different times: put SR84 in a top priority list to be funded and constructed; removed it completely from the priority lists; moved it from an A list (funded first) to a B list.
SR84 has been used as a political club, or a carrot, depending upon which agency wanted what project done first - and Staples Ranch and Stoneridge Dr. have been right in the middle of all of it. Problem is, we all lose when these kind of politics are played.
Posted by Pete, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Mayor Hosterman timed her deciding vote with National Women's History Month. Think about that...? How could it not be better scripted? She has already plotted to secure her legacy within our Community's Pioneer cemetery. She was voted in over four years ago, primarily because a third party split the vote. She recognizes the sheltered early life-style growing up, which attributes to a bratty disposition when not allowed to get her way. That has played a significant role. Just "last year", the mayor to the north confessed that working in a partnership actually had its benefits. You think? The mayor to the east has wore so many hats that finding one to fit is fun politically. San Ramon just flies under the radar. So what does that mean? Jennifer just learns as she goes, as a child starting school.I like them all, they have a thankless job at times. Pleasanton will be in for some very bad days with the SDE. The Community voted Jerry and Cheryl into office, absolutely knowing the outcome of last nights vote. Matt and Cindy represent stability for their constituency which ask questions. Either way, all that doesn't matter. Jennifer made the deciding vote. Her legacy will be "Timing Queen" or "Whatever... it looks good"
Bottom-line,if SDE is to be built, the influence needs to come from Pleasanton residents, not Alameda County planners.
Posted by John, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 9:02 pm
After watching most of this last night I can see why we are having so many problems in Pleasanton. The blind leading the blind. 1/2 of downtown Pleasanton is open for lease or in the middle of a close out sale. Way to go Chamber. The majority of who we heard from last night were against the extension, but did our elected official listen, no. What type of traffic control will we have in place to stop speeding?
Posted by Common Sense, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Feb 25, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Thank You City Council for deciding to go with common sense - the approval of the Stoneridge Drive extension. Now if we could only use that same common sense and put an exit ramp on Las Positas from I-680 it would be perfect. We need an exit ramp at Las Positas if for nothing else than providing a second entrance/exit to Foothill High School. We need another way out of the high school and Lydiksen in the event of an emergency. Foothill Rd. cannot accomodate all the traffic and an exit/entrance ramp to the freeway would be extremely beneficial. And to be honest, I don't see how it could impact the current neighbors any more than it already does. Act now...don't wait another 30 years to complete Stoneridge and to utilitze the opportunity we have with a Las Positas interchange.
Posted by John, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2009 at 10:50 pm
We have been here 20 years and moved in with the expectation of Stoneridge being extended. We looked at the plans before we moved in, and liked the idea. I am glad to hear that it is being given the go ahead.
I am a little disappointed at the verbal jousting and threats coming from members of my community, especially given the fact that the plan has been in place for a couple decades.
However, whining does work. Those with the loudest and meanest voices always drown out the meek.
Maybe we could all vote on this platform and save the city the expense of a referendum.
Posted by Disgusted, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 12:50 am
Look at the details, people. READ the city reports! How many people who think this is a good idea actually read the staff report?
Linking Stoneridge to the highway will just create MORE traffic! And the developers want it because they need it in order to build more in Hacienda Business Park, because THAT will create more traffic.
You're being duped!
A few people who own and deal in real estate (brokers) will benefit from this A LOT. ALL the residents of the city will suffer. As Pleasanton becomes completely cemented in, we become more and more like Dublin/Fremont/Hayward. Our quality of life will go down. Our housing values will go down (even more).
And The Pleasanton Weekly should be called "The Voice of the Chamber of Commerce". It's not a newspaper.
Posted by Were you at the Meeting?, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Feb 26, 2009 at 12:57 am
Adam, you must not have been at the meeting last night, because almost everyone there--who was not hired to come--was against the Stoneridge Extension. There were SOME speakers who were for it, but not many.
And there was a room full of red shirts, so whoever said that there were no red shirts clearly couldn't be bothered to come to the meeting.
Also, many people who were against the Stoneridge Extension (being decided upon now)were not wearing red shirts--like myself.
Posted by I love Pleasanton, a resident of the Stoneridge neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 6:35 am
Thanks council for making an excellent decision that will benefit our entire community for many years. Hosterman, Thorne and Cook-Kallio have the foresight that our early leaders had when they pushed forward with Stoneridge Mall and Hacienda Business Park. It turns out those decisions created a coup for Pleasanton that our neighboring cities would have killed to get for themselves. Let's stop kidding ourselves - Pleasanton can afford its amenities because we have an excellent tax base. A thriving Staples Ranch will help us continue to invest in cultural and philanthropic efforts throughout Pleasanton. If we want to continue to see Pleasanton thrive, this is a great opportunity.
Thank you Cheryl, Jerry and Jennifer for cutting through all of the politically-correct, neighborhood special interests and instead voting to invest in Pleasanton's thriving future! Future generations will think look back on this and take pride in the continuing foresight of city planners, just as we do today. This is the progressive town that Pleasanton is...if you want to stop progress, move to Sunol...it's a quaint old towne. In fact, rather than spend money on a taxpayer-funded ballot initiative to continue this argument, let's start a community donation fund to pay for Matt Sullivan to move to Sunol!
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 7:55 am
I don't see a referendum being successful. It certainly doesn't have the political appeal that Ayala's Oak Grove referendum had. What I mean is that hill-saving in Pleasanton is a political no-brainer while the belief that a majority would vote down the building of a road that will incrementally solve the biggest political issue in Pleasanton today, traffic, is making a bad gambling bet. And the damage that could do amongst our regional partners if a road were referended? We could kiss SR84 getting widened in our lifetime goodbye.
I haven't read the Triangle Study, but I can guess that Pleasanton stands to benefit the most from SR84 being widened compared with Dublin and Livermore. You mentioned the "you scratch my back" politicking and that's exactly what I'm referring to. Whose back is Pleasanton scratching by trying to hold off the Stoneridge extension? If Pleasanton wants to continue to behave like an entitled teenager, that is certainly our prerogative, but in the real world a person doesn't get something for nothing.
Posted by Sue, a member of the Mohr Elementary School community, on Feb 26, 2009 at 8:27 am
You know, there are such things as common sense and due diligence in selecting a home and a neighborhood.
It would not take much more than opening one's eyes to have noticed that Stoneridge Drive would someday be extended beyond its present barricaded end. And it sure wouldn't take much to have noticed how close one is to the airport out in that area, a previous whining heard from residents of that area.
If you can't live with the noise from the airport, or the eventual extension of Stoneridge, then you shouldn't have purchased a home out there in the first place.
Posted by Stop your Crying, a resident of the Stoneridge neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 8:59 am
This was the best thing that could happen to the great city of Pleasanton. For those of you who would want this oppertunity to go to Dublin or Livermore your crazy. They have professionals that can help all of you. I live in the area that is effected and I have heard my neighbors cry non stop about the noise. How this is going to effect their "Quite time". Get real. IF there is cut through traffic " Which I am convinced that the city will do everything to avoid this" it will be to and from work hours. Not on Saturday or late at night to disrupt your beauty sleep. This means jobs and revenue for the city. GET OVER IT ALREADY.
Posted by Lee, a resident of the Highland Oaks neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 9:18 am
I am not a fan of the SDE and I do think there are going to be real negative repercussions from 580 traffic. However I trust that moving forward the city will do everything it can to make Stoneridge an unattractive option for those who wish to use it as a commute lane, with lights, traffic circles, anything to slow the pace of cut through traffic. That being said, I absolute agree with the posters regarding the widening of SR84. That project needs to be done and it will send freeway traffic away from Pleasanton. Pleasanton sits as an island surrounded by freeways 580/680/SR84. Neither Dublin or Livermore have that problem. Unfortunately every traffic scenario needs to be viewed from that lens.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 9:40 am
Billie wrote: "The one thing it won't do, according to traffic engineering data, is "ease the traffic in many other parts of the city". Not even on Valley, which is actually projected to see an increase in delay."
At the Council meeting it was brought up that the volume of traffic on Valley doesn't change significantly because the traffic that would normally cut through on Kolln would now take Valley. For example, check out the May 1, 2007 regular City Council meeting attachment packet, which contains the General Plan traffic study: Web Link In the traffic modeling study are bandwidth maps like pg. 44 of the packet. You can see how the bandwidth number decreases on residential side streets like Kolln as traffic prefers to take the arterial roads once again with the extension.
The conclusion to be made is that on the arterial streets traffic isn't eased much (that requires SR84 widening), but on the residential streets side streets there is.
Posted by Scott Walsh, a resident of the Pleasanton Valley neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 9:44 am
I approve of the Stoneridge extension. I am glad to see an old fashion "good ole days city council fight". I remember when our previous councilmen and councilwomen would have healty, spirited BUT Respectful discussions before taking the "hard" vote. A decision was made and that was it. We had elected these folks and if we disagreed with their work, we then voted them out. Now it is all about threatening lawsuits and referendums it seems on every unpopular vote taken by those we elect. You want to talk shameful and expensive. I for one will live with the majority vote and will fight against any referendum . As for a lawsuit, it is our tax dollars that has to pay for them in one way or another. That road should have been built first before the houses. Then people living there would have had a choice to buty there or not. I am hoping Pleasanton will do that in the future. Community of Character?---NO where close and all sides are sure showing it. City council, thank you for finally showing some leadership for what I believe will be good for ALL the community!
Posted by Billie, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 10:11 am
Take a look at Attachment 16 of the Staples Ranch documents. As I referenced in my earlier message, the charts in the city's Sept 2008 response to LAFCO indicate a 7% increase in delay on Valley in the PM, assuming timed signaling (23% increase without).
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Kolln might not see the expected relief as folks cut back and forth between Valley and Stoneridge looking for the fastest route.
Someoe mentioned signalization as a deterrent to cut-through traffic. Just FYI, the last time I counted, Valley has 17 light and stop signals in the 3.5 miles between I-680 and Stanley, so it hasn't worked there.
We'll just have to wait and see what really happens. And that's all I have to say on this one. Later gators!
Posted by Frank, a resident of the Ruby Hill neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 10:40 am
Time to think about extending Las Positas as well. The traffic on Stoneridge will be too great without this additional extension. We will also need a new ramp to I-680 from Las Positas. The Stoneridge extension is just the first step.
Collectively we are greedy idiots and we'll get what we deserve...more traffic, traffic-related fatalities, noise, and pollution.
Posted by Terry Messick-Cass, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Wow...more traffic, pollution, noise and crime are on their way to Pleasanton as Stoneridge Drive becomes Stoneridge Freeway! So sad, as children, parents and animals will be at risk crossing Stoneridge Freeway to get home??? The only folks that win here are the developers, not the people of Pleasanton!!!
Posted by HWY 84, a resident of the Pleasanton Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Do you think they are putting in a race way? Traffic fatalities? It can't be any worse then Santa Rita and Valley and annually how many "Fatalities" do we have there? How about all the people that may stop and spend money at those Stoneridge commerce? I guess we do not need that exposure or possible income.
You should be worried about HWY 84 not Stoneridge for your fatalities and increased traffic.
Posted by supporter, a resident of the Golden Eagle neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I think the motivation was probably the possibility of losing the land. If SDE did not go through then two things could happen. One we would have to pay to build it eventually and second we could lose the land and all that comes with it to Dublin or Livermore. Some of you can't take your eye off the traffic issue long enough to look at the potential loss we faced. Jobs and economic vitality are far more important then a few extra cars mon- fri for a couple hours. Do you know that Hendricks Auto would be gone all together? That is a lot of tax money. Big picture people. There is more at risk than your inconvenience.
Posted by V.Venkatesan, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I have lived in Pleasanton for almost 25 years. The Stoneridge extension should have gone thru over 20 years ago as planned. Instead it became the third rail of politics where a small special interest group held the city to ransom scaring all the politicians. If there is a referendum the extension will get a over 2/3rds majority. It is time we moved on. Let us get something done during this depression. I am glad some people are willing to build. Everyone else seems to be leaving California. Congrats for finally making some progress.
Posted by MAD AS H*LL, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I am truly saddened that pro-growth Dublin and Livermore, aided by Alameda County (a persistent thorn in Pleasanton's side) have finally wrestled Pleasanton to the mat on this issue. Stoneridge will now become the I-580 bypass and we will have gridlock traffic through Pleasanton during commute hours. Why is it that Dublin and Livermore can't put it in, and pay for, the infrastructure to support the growth they seem to embrace? In their breakneck drive to turn the Tri-Valley into another San Jose or Los Angeles, they are ruining our quality of life. In my 20+ years I have lived in Pleasanton, it has been painful to see certain council members abruptly switch their votes on growth control and quality-of-life measures. The developers' positions somehow just seem to illuminate a path to a prosperous retirement. Could it have been that "illuminating vision" that prevented Mayor Hosterman and Council members Thorne and Cook-Callio from letting the voters decide - pretty much the same position they took on building homes on the hillsides. The voters of Pleasanton need to rise up an swat them out of office, and the sooner the better. It’s also time to give a big kick in the derriere to the Pleasanton City Council PAyola Committee (PAC), as they have played a major part in putting and keeping our misguided Mayor and Council members Thorne and Cook-Callio in office.
Posted by PW, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Venkatesan wrote: "Instead it became the third rail of politics where a small special interest group held the city to ransom scaring all the politicians."
Well, that 'third rail' is still holding the city to ransom for as of a few hours ago, Ann the Fox and Greg O'golly-gee Connor presented an initiative. This is for a voter referendum regarding Stoneridge. Surprised? These people, which include but are not limited to are: Ann Fox, Greg O'Connor, Matt Sulllivan, Brian Arkin, Kay Ayala, Cindy McGovern (Kay's puppet and probably through blackmail).
Posted by Tracy, a resident of the Jensen Tract neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 4:41 pm
If they want to figure out what the majority of residents want, they should have the City engage in a democratic process that includes City voters being able to weigh-in on controversial development projects like California Splash and Home Depot and potentially disastrous freeway connections by automatically putting these things on the ballot if they are approved. Napa, Escondido, Saratoga and many communities have this process already.
Danville has this process and Danville is looking a lot better than Pleasanton these days.
I want to have a vote BEFORE the bulldozers arrive.
I think Pleasanton is trying to become another San Jose.
Posted by Claire, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Thank you, thank you, thank you. It's about time. I watched the proceedings on TV and thought most speakers were FOR the extension, or at least pretty much a split. Those who thought there were more speakers against...no way. Matt Sullivan's demeanor was not at all impressive. Does he know how he comes across?
Posted by PW, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Stoneridge Drive has been in the General plan long before most of Ptown moved here. (Last data I am aware of: 60% of Ptown residents are 7 years or younger.) Due diligence works wonders. Don't like what you see? Don't move here.
Posted by Blas Capwell, a member of the Mohr Elementary School community, on Feb 26, 2009 at 5:23 pm
"Pathetic creatures"? "Puppet"? Providing the home addresses of people whose opinions you disagree with?
You say more about yourself with these words, PW, than you do about those whom you are attacking. And yet you hide behind your initials.
For my part, I attended Tuesday's meeting and saw two members of the council take a principled stand against the rush to extend Stoneridge. Each of them asked important questions and expressed unease with the lack of answers. The traffic flow models that I saw presented at an earlier council meeting were woefully inadequate, as are the existing environmental impact reports. And yet these formed much of the basis for Tuesday's decision.
Thank you, Matt Sullivan and Cindy McGovern, for taking your jobs seriously. Thank you for representing the interests of everyone in Pleasanton who knows that just crossing your fingers and hoping for a happy outcome is no way to insure a city's future.
Posted by Blas Capwell, a member of the Mohr Elementary School community, on Feb 26, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Claire said: "Those who thought there were more speakers against...no way."
I kept a tally of speakers at the council meeting and it shows that in fact more speakers were against the extension than were for it. The split was 23 against, 19 for, with two or three speakers not expressing an opinion either way. The proceedings are on tape if you won't accept my tally.
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Bring on a referendum! Let's see if it gets enough signatures. If it does, let's get this put to vote really fast. I can't wait to vote for the extension. This "rush" to extend Stoneridge Drive has been going on for more that the 30 years I have lived here, and I don't plan to go along with the neighborhood NIMBY's and their political games-player supporters stopping it.
Posted by Pleasanton Dad, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I am so relieved our council made a wise decision. Since I moved to Pleasanton 10 years ago I've been increasingly dismayed with the behavior of some on the council who hold onto ideas long after rational thought has sunk in with the majority of the city. Why does Matt Sullivan represent one neighborhood when he should represent the entire city? Or is he representing his own opinions regardless of what the majority of this city want? My understanding is that our elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents.
Matt, either represent the entire city or step down from the council because you're a pain and drain to the rest of this city who can agree to disagree. Not only that, all of your fights to drag things out cost this city money, something we are all short of in case you haven't pulled your head out of your sandbox lately. Matt, start acting like a leader instead acting like a spoiled little brat who gets more defiant when he doesn't get his way. For heaven's sake, get out of the way!
Posted by V.Venkatesan, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 8:19 pm
I think most people here are in total denial and don't seem to have the foggiest idea of the trouble that the nation,state and our city are in. We desperately need need new sources of revenue whether it be sales tax, property tax or whatever. Staples Ranch is one of the very few new revenue sources. California is still bankrupt. The sales tax increase will probably result in a big drop in sales and the income tax increase will result in more high income people leaving the state. Pleasanton is not sitting in the cat bird's seat that many seem to think. Our revenues are dropping fast and we have a over $120 million unfunded liability for police,fire and city employee pensions and retiree medical care. Over the past decade city expenses have skyrocketed just like the state's. The stock market has fallen in half to 1997 levels and real estate has fallen 30% and may fall substantially more as California is a very unattractive place with huge sales and income taxes.
We need some big cuts in city expenses to live within our means.The school budget is only the beginning. Let us not turn away any sources of revenue for fear of traffic and noise.
Sorry if I got on my high horse. We are no longer the rich nation,state and city we were.
Posted by George Withers, a resident of the Jensen Tract neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Stoneridge Drive Extension – Thank You!!
I watched every minute of the February 24th Pleasanton City Council meeting and I listened intently to every speaker. As I listened, I could not help but think, as those in opposition to the Stoneridge Drive Extension gave their comments, you moved into a development with an entrance that consists of a 4-lane divided roadway that extends from Santa Rita Road to more than half way to El Charrro Rd. While I know that you were informed as part of the disclosure agreement when you purchased your home, that at some point Stoneridge Drive would be extended to El Charro Rd. and eventually on to Livermore in some fashion. Even if the disclosure notification failed to inform you for some reason, even Ray Charles would have asked, what is the future plan for this 4-lane divided roadway?
I tired to put myself in your position, and attempted to apply your “Don’t Approve It” position to some of the other development projects, that I have seen and participated in over the past 50 years, and to see how this might benefit the community as a whole. The first thing that came to mind is that your homes would not even exist. Secondly, Foothill Road, which is really State Highway 21, would still be the only North-South Valley crossing, as we certainly would not allow a major highway to cut right through the middle of our town. Just think of the traffic it will bring and the people and businesses that will want to move here! Build a major Shopping Mall at the Western entrance to our Town, and displace all those cows, you must be out of your mind.
The construction of an additional East-West roadway from Pleasanton to Livermore has been planned for over 40 years. Yes, it was supposed to be Was Las Positas, however that changed when residents complained (Rightfully so, because all of their homes fronted this roadway!), and the decision was made to realign Stoneridge Drive and make this part of the new East-West crossing. It will be outstanding roadway, just like Valley Ave., Santa Rita Road, or Hopyard Road, which will provide a much-needed benefit to our community.
I congratulate the City Council on this long awaited decision, I only wish the vote had been 5-0.
Posted by V.Venkatesan, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 8:53 pm
You put it beautifully and eloquently. I have been saying that for 20 years. I couldn't believe how the city council repeatedly caved in on this issue. Better late than never. In a way it shows you why we are in the problems we are in. Common sense seems to be a rare commodity these days. Let us hope we don't have to go thru a joke of a referendum on this. If we lose the referendum then I really give up.
Posted by Curious, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 9:37 pm
How can Councilmembers McGovern and Sullivan talk about trust and the MOU for Stoneridge Dr. and its framework with a straight face when their cronies, Anne Fox and Greg O'connor, had ALREADY submitted a notice to collect signatures for an initiative that would negate approval of a number projects including the Staples Ranch and Stoneridge Dr. all the way back to Jan 1, 2009 PRIOR to the Council meeting. BTW, this initiative would also rescind approval of the over 55 community off of Valley Ave, a project that would be unique to Pleasanton. This initiative would require everything put to a vote of the residents, thereby eliminating the need to have a City Council. And curious, that Anne Fox has indicated to a number of people that she plans to run for City Council in 2010.
I'm very disappointed in Cindy and Matt for casting the other three council members in a negative light regarding trust when I have to believe they knew about the initiative that had been submitted prior to the meeting. That seems just as disingenious to me as to what they were accusing the Mayor, Cook-Kalio and Thorne of doing. And one has to assume that Kay Ayala is mixed up in this as well and will be part of the signature gathering process. No wonder nothing is getting done in our City!!!!
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Here's my forecast on how the referendum proponents are going to mislead people into signing a petition. They will say "Sign this petition if you want to reduce traffic in Pleasanton". They won't say "Sign this petition if you don't want Stoneridge to go thru".
Mark my words. They now have 30 days to con enough people to sign thru their trickery and misrepresentations.
The best counter to this is to shine a big spotlight on the issue so everybody in Pleasanton becomes aware of what the real issues are.
Posted by Curious, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 9:54 pm
The initiative that signatures will be collected for is far broader then SDE/Staples Ranch. it will force a vote on the +55 community just approved, probably has some impact on things being considered in the Business Park related to height, anything modifying a specific plan, etc. Its retroactive to Jan 1, 2009.
In addition, its my understanding that papers were taken out yesterday to referend the SDE/Staples Ranch decision made earlier this week. People need to wake up as it won't be just about SDE but also include Staples Ranch because of the way the motion was made at the Council meeting. That impacts the ice facility, the car dealership (Can you say lost tax revenue--wonder how that effects the currents PUSD budget issues) and the age in place facilty that Cindy has been such a big supporter of.
What happened to being on the losing side of a vote and moving on? Something seems wrong that a minority can continue to tie up the city and keep things from getting done.
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Yes, I understand the negative consequences that these two feet-in-the-mud council members instigate. Both are feeling that they have a majority of citizens backing them because they won re-election. They are deluding themselves.
They won re-election because on the ballot you get to vote for two names and the incumbents who have name recognition nearly always win. These two seem to have ignored the real race that occurred in November where simple name recognition was not relevant because both mayoral candidates were on equal footing in this regard. And Hostermann stomped Brozosky. That vote was more indicative of what the majority thinks when it comes to the issues that affect Pleasanton.
These two have to get their heads beaten a bit before they wake up to the fact that they are not representing the mainstream citizen in deciding issues and moving our city forward. That beating is long overdue but it is coming.
Posted by more curious, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 10:28 pm
It seems that in addition to the initiative filed by the now infamous Anne Fox and Greg O'Connor, both Planning Commissioners, there is now a referendum of the Staples Ranch development project and the extension of Stoneridge Drive, filed by Anne Fox and Greg O'Connor, and Cindy McGovern and Matt Sullivan.
So, why do we have local government representation? Let's just put everything on the ballot!
Posted by Jack, a resident of the Amador Estates neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Thank you City Council for your decision. My family and I love this town. Let's focus on our schools, not the non-sense of the road. Staples will stimulate the local economy and the road will provide convenience to our residents.
Posted by trekmtb, a resident of the Heritage Oaks neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2009 at 6:58 am
Mr Capwell wrote:
"Trek, that's like going to Politico.com and finding that most of the commenters are Republicans. Someone stated earlier that The Pleasanton Weekly speaks for the Chamber of Commerce. I agree."
What does the Pleasanton Weekly's position on the CofC have to do with the opinions of the posters on this thread? I for one read the Pleasanton Weekly because it's the only Pleasanton paper AND it's free AND it's mailed to me.
Posted by Blas Capwell, a member of the Mohr Elementary School community, on Feb 27, 2009 at 9:36 am
Trek asked: "What does the Pleasanton Weekly's position on the CofC have to do with the opinions of the posters on this thread?"
Simply stated, Trek, internet studies show that people visit websites that reflect their opinions and interests. I haven't bookmarked the Pleasanton Weekly's website because I don't share Jeb Bing's blind boosterism of the Chamber of Commerce and its commerce-at-any-cost philosophy. The Chamber and the Weekly have been pushing the extension at us for years, without acknowledging the full impact the extension will have on neighborhoods throughout the northern half of Pleasanton. Those who agree with the Chamber and Weekly's positions are more likely to read this website and leave comments. Those who feel otherwise are inclined to tune the Weekly out.
Posted by Billie, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2009 at 9:41 am
Finally - someone with the right idea! Let's have anyone who dissents from the majority in the government booted out of office! Let's make sure we get people in place who will ALWAYS agree with whoever is in power. There should NEVER be anyone in any governmental position who may bring up, and fight for, ideas that are in opposition to the majority. That's how we get a good government - for the people and by the people! Well, at least those people who agree with the majority leadership.
Posted by Blas Capwell, a member of the Mohr Elementary School community, on Feb 27, 2009 at 9:52 am
I have to laugh at the number of comments from people far removed from the negative impacts the Stoneridge extension will inflict on residents. "West side observer, resident of Oak Hill"? Not in your backyard, no indeed. It appears we also differ on the definition of common sense. But don't let that stop you from criticizing those of us a little closer to the action.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2009 at 10:00 am
Come over to my neighborhood during PM peak commute hours and I'd like to see you pull a left onto Santa Rita from Sutter Gate. And no cheating by cutting through the neighborhood to take the light at Mohr. That's no better than the cut-through on Kolln.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2009 at 10:02 am
Oh wait! I made the choice to live in the Gates and deal with pulling out of Sutter Gate knowing there's no light there? Of course! Just like the Mohr-Martin neighbors made a choice to purchase their homes next to a major arterial road that is planned to be built through to El Charro.
Posted by my 2 cents, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2009 at 10:03 am
I think that honest discussion is good and I like the fact that there are different ideas on any board. However, I dislike the idea that any time someone disagrees they must have an agenda or are bought off by special interests instead of agreeing to disagree and move on.
Oh, the paper does not agree with my position, it must be because it is owned by business.
That councilmember voted against my interest they must be paid by the other group.
When the council agrees with you is it because you have paid them off? Or are the only honest councilmembers the ones who agree with your position? Do you really think that people run for office and volunteer the huge amount of hours and listen to the amount of disrespectful attacks because they are getting something from someone?
It was clear to many that the move to continue the Stoneridge discussion was an attempt by many to put off the decision in hopes that the extension would go away. Pleasanton has been talking about it for years and years. It was a tough decision and those who did not like the decision are upset and those who believe it is a good idea are pleased.
This is what democracy is like. Does anyone really think people did not have a chance to be heard?
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2009 at 10:16 am
You should consider advocating for blocking all side street entrances off of Stoneridge a la Kolln south of Valley, not the taxpayer funded subsidization of an expensive arterial cul-de-sac for the pleasure of a select few.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2009 at 10:34 am
This really easily becomes a neighborhood vs. neighborhood issue. I brought up Sutter Gate to illustrate this. Whenever talk about cut-through traffic comes up, it always ignores the Pleasanton resident who has to be frustrated by taxpayer subsidized blocked public roads. Why does a minority get to dictate the choice of access to our town to the rest of us? Hasn't Pleasanton learned yet from the time we tried to meter the 680 off-ramp at Sunol Blvd.? The people who want Stoneridge blocked off are a selfish minority. They care little for the rest of us who want to freely drive through to access what is planned for Staples Ranch. Why should we be forced to take the freeway when our taxes have paid for that road?
Posted by West side observer, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2009 at 10:44 am
Counselors Sullivan and McGovern and Planning Commissioners Fox and O'Connor are from a long line of obstructionists who have, over the years, cost us a whole lot of money with their NIMBYism and their environmental extremism. They also sap resources at City Hall because a good number of personnel are deployed to prepare for the endless meetings, lawsuits, ballot initiatives as a result of their opposition to anything that runs counter to their agenda. Starting with Ben Tarver and running to today—about 20 years--we have been intimidated by this group that has controlled the city agenda and debate.
Twenty years is too long to put up with their obstruction and demagoguery. So yes, throw them out. It is time that reasonable people control the debate and the agenda.
Posted by Blas Capwell, a member of the Mohr Elementary School community, on Feb 27, 2009 at 10:45 am
For the record, 2 cents, I never said that the Pleasanton Weekly was "owned" by the Chamber of Commerce or business. Nor have I claimed that the council was "bought off by special interests." What I said was that the Weekly speaks for the Chamber and that its editor is a booster of the Chamber.
It could be you're addressing someone else -- that's not clear -- but it appears you're responding to my comments on the Weekly and I don't want you distorting my position.
Posted by V.Venkatesan, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2009 at 11:43 am
These blogs are a lot of fun. I only started looking at them a few weeks ago. Maybe we should hold our city council meetings here instead of sitting thru the boring meetings which I could never stand. I better stop blogging because I am falling in love with my own comments.:)May as well have fun while our nation,state and city are going down the tubes. Smacks of Nero while Rome was burning.
Posted by Nancy, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on Feb 27, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I understand that to allow more routes for east to west traffic flow, that Parkside next to the Sports Park will be opened up into the Sutter Gate neighborhood. In that way, Black and Valley won't overburdened.
I can't wait to see this happen because it is very inconvenient to have east residents have to travel all the way over to Hopyard to access the Sports Park. I'm glad that this will happen.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2009 at 12:49 pm
You're almost as facetious as I am! Of course, you still are unable to compare the arterial road called Stoneridge Drive, which is designed to handle the traffic, with a residential street like Sutter Gate. I suppose we should install a taxpayer funded EVA gate at Valley Ave. right north of the Fairgrounds so that all Pleasanton residents have to be forced to go around on Bernal and through the downtown area in order to access Hopyard. Hey! It will cut down on cut through traffic, right?
Posted by El Gator, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2009 at 2:09 pm
A big Thank You to Matt Sullivan, Cindy McGovern, and the process that still goes on with the Stoneridge Extension....
A lot of wheeling, dealing, and less that straight forward politics went on.
Matt and Cindy are the most astute Political people on the Council. The Mayor didn't even know the process at the 2-3-09 meeting. That is a big red flag for her interest in knowing or respecting the due process.
The City of Pleasanton is regarded as a model city. The next item with this Developer Cabal is to do away with the building limits..
I can't wait to see that 37 acres of abandoned concrete if and when Hendricks goes bust.. Just take a drive over to Dublin and see all that wonderful concrete abandoned by the auto-industry...
The County and Developers have an "In" now and the Plesanton you know and love in endangered.
Posted by Developer Bashing, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2009 at 11:31 am
I'm dismayed with all the negative comments toward developers and the chamber of commerce in this thread. Those who choose to bash the developers or development in general: unless you are living in a hollowed out tree (or under a rock, which I suspect for some of you is more likely the case), you are probably living in a DEVELOPER-built house, in a DEVELOPER-built neighborhood, driving on DEVELOPER-built roads, shopping in DEVELOPER-built stores; well, you get my point here. So please, please stop the negative comments toward developers, commerce and go back to living under your nice, warm rock.
Posted by George Withers, a resident of the Jensen Tract neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I could not agree with you more! I would even include the negative comments directed at the Pleasanton Weekly, the only local paper to provide them a vehicle, through which they can voice their opinions on local issues!
Posted by westsider, a resident of the Highland Oaks neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2009 at 4:21 pm
geez Blas, someone simply points out that we all live in developer-built houses, and you call them a Nazi. Sad. Very sad. I guess you're in favor of comments on this forum as long as they agree with you, huh?
Posted by Jason, a resident of the Pleasanton Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Thank you City Council for approving this. It will alleviate traffic in other parts of the city and we can certainly use the revenue from the new commercial developments. Anyone who bought a house off of the impacted area of Stoneridge would have gotten disclosures informing them of the planned extension.
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2009 at 8:08 pm
It seems a record of sorts has been achieved in this thread. To garner 160+ posts in just a few days does not appear to have precedence in the PW blog, even with hot issues like the PUSD budget and parcel tax.
Furthermore, 2 to 1 in favor of SDE is something quite remarkable because normally the NIMBY faction against any local issue tends to dominate the postings since the larger citizenry normally feels unaffected and does not bother to write posts.
I think what has happened is the two feet-in-the-mud council members have delayed this thing for so long that it is now blowing up in their faces. Prolonging Staples Ranch and the SDE has caused the issue to rise significantly in the consciousness of the wider majority of Pleasanton citzenry, and they have become indignant with what has been happening. It will only get worse for the opponents of SDE.
Bring on the referendum and watch the subsequent hell-raising. This post's record may quickly fall.
Posted by Pollster, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Quit hiding behind your false moniker ... the vote has been cast and your side has lost the argument ... BIG TIME! It is time to move on, and quit bickering over the inevitable. Climb back under your warm rock and pretend none of this ever happened ... tee hee, tee hee! I am really a Cholo from Livermore :)
Posted by james, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2009 at 8:55 pm
this extension is going to bring more traffic into pleasanton - and not the good kind of traffic. commuters are like ants - you block one way, and they'll find another way to get where they want to go. if 580 is jammed up (which it is almost every weekday between 4-7pm), commuters will looks for alternate routes (which include through town) to get to where they want to go. if you want a current example of this, just look at valley at santa rita around those same hours. most of the streets leading to stoneridge at santa rita will become more congested as people get off 580 to get to stoneridge from hopyard, hacienda, & maybe even santa rita. that means more traffic in town and a bigger PITA for residents trying to get where they need to get within town.
to be honest, if the traffic were mainly pleasanton residents trying to get to staples ranch, i'd be more or less okay with it. a little inconvenient, but if it benefits the residents and city, then okay. i just don't like the idea of commuters from livermore to tracy using it to shorten their commute by 5-10 minutes.
Posted by Developer Bashing, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I could not agree with you more. Bring on the referendum and let the battle begin. I would even be willing to volunteer my time to the recall of Sullivan and McGovern for their obstructionist behavior on the council. What a waste of our taxpayer dollars ... and the thought of Ann The Fox and Greg O'Connor still involved in local politics raises the grey hair on my back.
Posted by FYI, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2009 at 9:41 pm
With regional improvements, freeway users will take Dublin Blvd, not Stoneridge. Dublin Blvd parallels the freeway and you can't see Stoneridge from the freeway, not to mention the number of stoplights and the metering to get back on the freeway.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2009 at 10:08 pm
In case anyone hasn't looked...
Dublin Blvd., Central Parkway, and Gleason Dr. are all built through to Fallon Road. Only Gleason is currently open at this time. I can take a guess that when the Fallon/El Charro interchange improvements are complete by this summer, both Dublin Blvd. and Central Parkway will be opened (i.e. they don't want to open it until the interchange and intersections can handle the traffic.)
Within another year or two, Livermore will have completed the Jack London Blvd. extension and their El Charro mall area.
Yet some in Pleasanton want everyone to wait until 2030, 20 more years, before being allowed to drive through on Stoneridge.
Our neighbors aren't asking us to solve the region's traffic problems. They're just looking for us to be a part of the solution.
Posted by Lee, a resident of the Highland Oaks neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Common now, a lot of people have navigational systems in their cars. Those commuters are a crafty bunch, they will definitely find
Stoneridge. However I do understand the position the city is in and think the SDE extention is an unfortunate compromise for some of the other larger issues. We can only hope that the issue of cut through traffic is taken very seriously and every possible means will be excercised to discourage it.
Posted by Developer Bashing, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Why would anyone want to take a "detour" 1+ mile from the freeway, when traffic usually eases up around Airway Blvd. anyway on the worst of days. The Las Positas Bvld. extension would have been much closer to the I-580 than SDE is (thus the parralel some have been referring to), so the argument doesn't mak any sense to me. The only reason that makes sense to me is if the commuter in question lives in Livermore or Ruby Hill.
Posted by Ken, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Feb 28, 2009 at 10:30 pm
From north I680 to east I580, the big cutthrough will be to exit Bernal, turn left on Valley turn left on Hopyard turn right on W Las Positas, to then turn right on Stoneridge out to the Altamont. I feel horrible for the Parkside, Amberwood, and Paseo neighborhoods with soundwalls backing to Valley as well as along Stoneridge. I hope they don't have asthmatic children who will struggle to breathe in the acrid clouds of exhaust that will fill the air with all the freeway traffic coming through Pleasanton.
Did you see the Forbes article on Yahoo on thw worst intersections in the U.S? Well that is now us.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2009 at 8:36 am
Who would take 680 N to 580 E? What I mean is, if their destination is Livermore, why wouldn't they take SR 84 or the Stanley route? Ken's route only makes sense to anyone living/working north of 84/Stanley who want to get east.
Posted by PW, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2009 at 9:20 am
Developer Bashing wrote: "I would even be willing to volunteer my time to the recall of Sullivan and McGovern for their obstructionist behavior on the council. What a waste of our taxpayer dollars ... and the thought of Ann The Fox and Greg O'Connor still involved in local politics raises the grey hair on my back."
GO GET 'EM! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? IT'S LONG OVERDUE!!!
Posted by Mike, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2009 at 10:51 am
I used to live in Tracy. Commuters travel in the AM from Tracy and beyond along 580--
For those that work in San Jose or the peninsula, they go south on 680 ( Sunol Grade )then take Mission to 880 then take 237 to the Silicon Valley or they cross the Dumbarton bridge to get to 101
All these commuters in the evening head back. 84 is narrow and winds around, and in the end, if you end up on Isabel you actually have to go backwards to get on the freeway at Airway. A better way is to drive through Pleasanton to avoid the 580 congestion.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2009 at 11:11 am
That's the point. If you're trying to avoid congestion on 580E from 680N, you'd drive through Pleasanton along the Stanley route and then through Livermore. You wouldn't drive through Pleasanton only to get back on the freeway at Tassajara or El Charro because congestion is pretty bad there. You'd want to avoid 580 as much as you can. Or at least that's what I'd do.
Posted by Eric Semmelmayer, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 11:03 am
Extension or not, This city NEEDS the revenue that will be generated by these new businesses. not only will the generate tax revenue, but the Ice rink itself will draw people from other northern and southern California to spend money in our fair city. Hockey tournaments hosted by the rink will bring in people from across the country as well. all of them will need places to sleep and eat while they attend these tournaments.
In these economic times, it is not prudent to be short sighted.
Posted by Ruth, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Mar 2, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Bravo councilmembers Hosterman, Thorne and Cook-Kallio!! You made the right decision for the whole of Pleasanton. It took 20 years for someone to finally have the guts to do the right thing even if unpopular in some neighborhoods. The Extension was always planned to go through (yes,it's a fact per 1989 specific plan), and it's well-overdue. Without it, how else could residents access Staples? Without it, Livermore would have had a shot at getting the land and they could have developed it any way they wanted without Pleasanton having any say in the matter.
It's time to move forward. If you don't like traffic, then find out how you can help promote the full widening of Hwy 84 which is Pleasanton's best hope for traffic relief. Stop fighting amongst ourselves. Let's not spend more tax money on a referendum vote. Get involved in getting Hwy 84 put through. Write to the County, write to the MTC, write your assemblyperson, write to McNerney.
Posted by June, a member of the Alisal Elementary School community, on Mar 2, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Hooray and thank you Mayor Hosterman & Councilmembers Thorne and Cook-Kalio for your informed leadership and approval of the Stoneridge Drive COMPLETION. Finally! Im amazed by "the sky is falling" mentality of people who do not support it. Heck, Ive been here long enough to remember the same fatalistic attitude and negativity when Hacienda Business Park was approved and when BART was opened. They were convinced then as now that Pleasanton was going to the dogs. And why bash the business community and developers who invested their money to make Pleasanton the desirable community it is today. Do these people living under a rock remember when downtown was in fact a scarey place to be at night cas I sure do. Yeah, before the development pumped money into the local economy so restaurants and shops would open, so we could have the parks we use today, and alot of people could live in a nice house in Pleasanton. I guess those same bashers dont work for a company or corporation that makes a profit, right? Fact is we need another west-east arterial for commute AND when there is an area wide emergency. Livermore, Dublin, Pleasanton and Alameda County are all partners in the Tri-Valley traffic/congestion management and all must provide more routes for mobility for residents on an area wide basis. And Staples will provide much needed revenue (AKA JOBS) as well as a wonderful new park, skate facility and senior housing.
Posted by Developer Bashing, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Thank you for your logical and insightful comments. You are obviously someone who has lived in Pleasanton for a long time, and does not want to see the NIMBY's rule the day (as I do not, either). Although most of the posters here are in favor of the SDE (probably 2 to 1), I'm fearful that too many uninformed or biased residents will sign a petition thrust under their nose at Safeway, Nob Hill or Raley's, with the end result being a rediculous initiative on the June ballot everyone will be asked to vote for, even though it does not belong there ... like the Hacienda Business Park Initiative.
Posted by June, a member of the Alisal Elementary School community, on Mar 3, 2009 at 9:06 am
Dev Bashing, I agree with you re the general public petition gathering process. People will sign most anything at the market especially when they are haggled and the gathers pitch the peoples' right to vote (blah, blah)by saying "you're only signing the petition to put it on the ballot, not making any decision on the matter today". Unfortunately, people dont realize the cost associated with simply putting a ballot measure on an election, not to mention the tremendous amounts of analyses already paid by the taxpayers as part of the 5-year City's General Plan Update process which has been publically discussed, analyzed, evaluated, and debated to death. Nor are they aware for the most part the implications regarding regional transportation funding being at stake. Wouldnt it be great if the petition circulation process itself to qualify Ballot Box Initiatives, which are ironically not subject to environmental review like General Plans and development proposals, required people to actually read independent and objective pro and con arguments before signing the petition. But I digress (sorry). Im just fed up with NIMBYs and Councilmembers like Sullivan and McGovern who ursurp their responsibility of leadership by calling for special elections after years of public review when they dont get their way and then try to pass it off as participatory democracy.I sincerely hope that this does not go to a ballot, but if the SDE/Staples opponents decide to further divide and erode this community by pushing for yet another ballot measure and dragging this out longer(the latter of which is obviously their strategy to kill the development plan, but you wont see that listed on any petition statement), I will have to contact the Chamber and business leaders to direct me along with others to groups where we will need to volunteer.
Posted by NO STONERIDGE, a member of the Harvest Park Middle School community, on Mar 20, 2009 at 12:20 am
Gerry, why are you saying yes to taking traffic congestion off the freeway and putting into Pleasanton???
Haven't you heard the saying, "if you build it, they will come"?
Go on line type in any of these words commute/Stanley/Livermore. See if you find any comments/complaints from Livermore residents about OUT OF TOWN commuters cutting through traffic in their town. They can no longer use their "Cut through streets"!
I'm sure that once the extension is built, the graffiti and the tire slashings on Stoneridge will also go away too...
I don't think we need any more extensions in any part of town. In a few generations we will go from living in a "town" to living in a "city".
Posted by Gerry Brunken, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2009 at 1:47 pm
For No Stoneridge----Build it? Sure, it was a good movie too. Build it? Sure, it is long over due, having been in the general plan since 1986, and is fiscally responsible for Pleasanton at this time. It seems that 75 plus percent of the above responders think so too. You certainly stay up late, at age 72, I usually give up the keyboard earlier in the evening.