Town Square

Post a New Topic

Group rallies in bid for City Council to act on Staples Ranch

Original post made on Jul 20, 2010

After nearly five years of delays in the approval process for the development of Stoneridge Creek, a continuing life retirement community on the Staples Ranch site, 35 Pleasanton seniors took matters into their own hands this week, rallying in front of the Civic Center and signing a petition asking the City Council to approve the project.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, July 20, 2010, 7:57 AM

Comments (33)

Posted by member, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 20, 2010 at 8:53 am

Support Stoneridge Creek! It's the best!


Posted by Helen W, a resident of Stoneridge
on Jul 20, 2010 at 9:21 am

It is time for Pleasanton to have a beautiful senior housing community. We need a continuing life care place to live out our lives.


Posted by Tim, a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Jul 20, 2010 at 10:05 am

This should have been approved and built long ago. I love seeing our local seniors being politically active!


Posted by Janet, a resident of Birdland
on Jul 20, 2010 at 11:01 am

Thank you Barabara Hemphill for all of your hard work.


Posted by Nosy Neighbors, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jul 20, 2010 at 11:27 am

A word of caution to the Peoples Republic of Plea...er, I mean the city council. Do not (Word removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff) the senior citizen community of this town or you will all be filling out new resume`s next year.

If you thought a few disgruntled parents wanting to impose a new property tax or a group of developers trying to build a few homes were causing you conniption fits, just wait until an organized, politically motivated & ticked off group of angry blue-haired seniors start making noise. You do not want to make this demographic angry. They have all the time in the world plus children & grandchildren just waiting to help out Nana & Papa in their time of need. Besides, you should have green lighted this years ago, now go & do the right thing!













Posted by Barry, a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on Jul 20, 2010 at 12:27 pm

If our lovely Mayor would have followed the rules and not tried to shove the Stoneridge Extension down our throats then it would be moving in the right direction....

Sorry to you Seniors, but a bait and switch was perpetrated.... It wasn't above board... Prety shady politics involved...


Posted by maja7, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jul 20, 2010 at 3:23 pm

Us, "Baby Boomers" are all aging out and we need somewhere to live. Can you help us out City Council?


Posted by tired of the mayor, a resident of Birdland
on Jul 20, 2010 at 7:17 pm

Barry, you are so right. The delays are because of the mayor. First she moved to put in the Stoneridge extension without doing an environmental impact report; which is required by state law. The city was forced to settle a lawsuit on that which delayed things. Then one of the conditions of the settling of the lawsuit was to give 10 days notice on hearings. The mayors staff did not do that which caused yet another long delay. This development should have been approved long ago but the mayor has really messed things up. If you want things to go quicker, get rid of our mayor. Have someone there who follows the law and does not do behind door negotiations and does not do bait and switch. This slimy politics only works in a community where people are not paying attention; not Pleasanton.


Posted by westsider, a resident of Foothill High School
on Jul 20, 2010 at 8:44 pm

Hey 'tired of the mayor,' I'm not a big Jennifer Hosterman fan either, but please don't lie about things, OK? When you say "she moved to put in the Stoneridge extension without doing an EIR" well, that's a lie. The EIR was done. Then another one was done after some folks out on Stoneridge complained that a weed wasn't mitigated for.

And when city staff messed up on the Stoneridge Drive notification technicalities, she was rightfully angry about it.

So vote for whoever you want to in November, but please stop lying about the facts.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 20, 2010 at 9:12 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Too true. If Hosterman is such a bad mayor, then no one needs to lie about facts, take things out of context, or frame a situation in a certain way in order to defeat her.


Posted by Pepper, a resident of Del Prado
on Jul 20, 2010 at 9:23 pm

She is a wacko and deserves to voted out of office. Want a fact? When she originally ran for office she promised to resolve the traffic congestion in town and specifically cut through traffic. It is worse than ever and she has done absolutely nothing. Vote her out and get someone with capability in the job.


Posted by delaying is disgusting, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 20, 2010 at 10:41 pm

The string of phony excuses and delays are truly disgusting...as are the lying, childish delayers. The tactics are So obvious.
Funny how with the new mandate for more subsidized housing, there can't be unnecessary driving farther than necessary. Yet the discusting delayers have for decades been making thousands of people drive SIX times farther than necessary, every day, to get to their jobs in our business park....rather than being allowed to use the direct route. The delayers are such selfish people trashing the environment. They are likely the hypocrites who lie about being responsible about environment....blind to their own destruction.
Put in the damn road and move on !


Posted by Chris, a resident of Del Prado
on Jul 21, 2010 at 12:00 am

The problem is not the mayor, but rather the individuals stuck in time who honestly still believe the Stoneridge extention is not needed. Get your head out of the sand! The traffic circulation in town would have been improved if the deal was done when first talked about those many years ago.


Posted by tired of the mayor, a resident of Birdland
on Jul 21, 2010 at 7:46 am

Check the facts. The EIR for the Stoneridge Extension was not part of the EIR for the Staples Ranch Plan. The Council majority, including the mayor, then added Stoneridge Extension (I am not arguing for or against the Stoneridge Extension). However when they added Stoneridge, they skipped the step of doing a supplimental EIR. That is required by CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act). The mayor knew this had to be done but did not want an environmental study to get in the way of her campaign donations.

And yes, her staff, did not send out the correct notices but the buck stops with her. Having her rant and rave and throw things at a council meeting was just childish. She knew about the deadlines and with a project that is this important, she should have personally ensurred the notices did go out. In fact she should have had the notices sent out early. She knew it was going to the council meeting even 10 days before the meeting. She probably thought that nobody would notice that the notices were not sent out in tim; giving ample time for review of the plans.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 21, 2010 at 9:32 am

Stacey is a registered user.

OK, so the facts are that another EIR was needed. The opinion is theorizing why the Mayor and Council took the route they did. Anyone can frame the situation to suit their bias, like how you leave out the part about Alameda County paying for the extension.

Now I ask dear readers to decide which option they think is best for all of Pleasanton, not just a single neighborhood:
1) Approve Staples without the extension (with the cul-de-sac option) and burden Pleasanton taxpayers to fund the full extension at some unknown time in the future.
2) Approve Staples with the extension, thereby having the extension paid for by the County (i.e., all regional taxpayers who will benefit from a regional arterial will contribute to its construction), yet risk a lawsuit over the EIR which tactically can just be settled by doing a supplemental EIR after the fact.
3) Deny Staples and extension, thereby losing the tax revenue and possibly have the property annexed by Livermore.


Posted by delaying is disgusting, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 21, 2010 at 10:14 am

Obviously, Stacey's # 2 is the only logical, fair, just, reasonable, and NECESSARY choice. Sadly, now we now learn Cindy, the head delayer and creator of phony excuses is going to run for Mayor. Will the BATTLES of these primitives never end. All 'thinking' people will choose to have the COUNTY PAY for our desperately needed circulation roads, which ultimately will be built!...better they pay than Pleasanton residents ! Wake up ! Government at every level does stupid things daily to cover boo-boos. Do the supplemental environmental report after the fact. Of course the WARRIORS will divide with ANOTHER of their famous LEGAL BATTLES.


Posted by sknywench, a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jul 21, 2010 at 11:19 am

sknywench is a registered user.

Barry & Tired of Mayor:
Shove Stoneridge Drive down our throat and bypass the EIR to rush the roadway completion. Have the two of you lived here longer than 5 years? If yes, you should know that Stoneridge Drive completion has been in the Pleasanton General Plan for over twenty years!!! It only got sidetracked during the last GP Update when a bunch of Stoneridge homeowners decided they would try to remove the road and sneak it through using the then Planning Commission which included Arkin and Fox. Guess what. Both who live in or near that neighborhood and wanted to eventually become City Councilmembers themselves so they started counting heads. Fact is, this roadway has been publically debated, analyzed, evaluated, and studied to death and the obstructionists are causing all of us taxpayers to foot the bill for all the tiny technical flaws they find and make a big deal out of it (i.e. a 9 day public notice instead of 10 day, and a common weed they kept saying was an endangered plant).


Posted by delaying is disgusting, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 21, 2010 at 2:17 pm

Sknywench, I think many speed readers, who just scan the first line for pro or con, might think you are against Stoneridge. I had to carefully sort the words, but near the end, do believe you are for Stoneridge. Maybe you could do another, with a few words like...we want Stoneridge ext NOW..stop the delays. thx


Posted by sknywench, a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jul 21, 2010 at 5:17 pm

sknywench is a registered user.

WE WANT STONERIDGE DRIVE COMPLETION NOW AND THE APPROVAL OF THE STAPLES RANCH NOW! Thank you "delaying is disgusting" for pointing out my tag line would be mis-read by speed readers. The Stoneridge Dr. extension has been planned for the City's build-out as part of the General Plan for over twenty years. Any person who has lived in Pleasanton for more than five years understands that this roadway has not been shoved down anyone's throat by the Mayor or Council. Any one who has in fact lived here for any length of time knows that only the NIMBYs, newcomers, and those wanting to be councilmembers by capturing the Stoneridge resident voters oppose the very much needed arterial extension. One only has to look at the I580, Isabel/Route 84, El Charro Interchange, Dublin Blvd. extension, Jack London construction, etc. to know that Pleasanton must be fair and complete its connection to improve regional mobility for its residents.


Posted by Barry, a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on Jul 22, 2010 at 10:51 am

Dearest Sknywench,

I love your passion!

I guess you don't care much about facts or due process....

Neither does our Mayor. This kind of half-baked, rushed seemingly corrupt, permanent actions are what really destroys communities.

The Stoneridge Extension does not do much to ease our traffic problem. I guess you and your side don't care to read much of the actual traffic studies that shows that the 84 Extension would be much more beneicial to our traffic problem. Our limited resources should go there.

I love "The hell with the facts" let's just do it! attitudes.. Great work!

See you in Novenber!!!

LET'S TAKE BACK PLEASANTON! GO CINDY!!!! TELL THE TRUTH ON 'EM!


Posted by jj, a resident of Birdland
on Jul 22, 2010 at 12:06 pm

Yes the Stoneridge Extension has been in the General Plan for some time BUT it also had highway 84 being 4 complete lanes. The regional studies have show that without highway 84 that Pleasanton will be a major cut-through route. If most of the jobs are in the silicon valley and the homes are in San Joaquin, if 84 is not there and highway 580 is backed up (like always) people will go through Pleasanton to avoid the 580 backup. We have also heard recently that Livermore may not be extending Jack London because their new shopping area at El Charro will not be happening. That means only Pleasanton will be carrying the cut-through traffic as people get off the freeway and use local streets to avoid the freeway mess.

To sknywench, since you agree that all the regional infrastructure must be in place and we do our fair share, would you agree that we should not open that extension until the rest of the infrastructure is on the way? Opening the extension is only fair if everybody does their part.


One of the reasons you are seeing a big push for the extension is from the developers, and developers interest in town. Especially Hacienda. They want to build thousands of new homes in Hacienda. With Stoneridge Extension on the books they can show a traffic model that says that those new houses and apartments will not cause traffic issues in Pleasanton. Without the extension, they cannot get that much housing approved in Hacienda because there is no traffic model that works for them. That is why the Hacienda association has also been working so hard with Urban Habitat on getting the housing cap thrown out. They want the cap removed so they can build their thousands of new houses and apartments plus a traffic model with Stoneridge Extension in it so all the business traffic that has been going to Santa Rita and Valley will instead be taking Stoneridge, and then they can backfill Santa Rita and Valley with all the new houses.


Posted by sknywench, a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jul 22, 2010 at 12:28 pm

sknywench is a registered user.

ji
To your comments I say you spend way too much time watching 'made for t.v. movies" and reading mystery novels. Gosh how people love conpiracy theories. Thousands of houses in Hacienda. What a joke. You think Hacienda would take argueably the most expensive land in town and want to build residential on it instead of commercial/office for more world-class Fortune 500 corporations? If you are not familiar with basic economics, hint, commercial real estate is way more valueable.

Barry and all of the other "Save Us Highway 84" advocates
I am sick of the hyped Highway 84 panacea for solving all the traffic problems in the Tri Valley. Get real. Check out I680 and I580 during weekends and all other non-commute periods and guess what? The congestion is predominately going over the I580 grade (Castro Valley) and I84 wont solve that back up. And the other regional improvements will likely be in place before Staples is approved at the snail-pace the opposition is playing out. Check out the traffic volumes at Santa Rita and Valley aka "the bottleneck" for all of us who have to sit waiting to get home. And as far as traffic projections, its smoke and mirrors best guess mathematical assumptions. Fact is Hacienda Business Park was designed with wide arterials and no one is driving them. All the congestion is on funneled through the surface collector and neighborhood streets. Common sense is that we need another west-east arterial connection. When the next big quake happens, and the entire Bay Area is trying to evacuate, I want as many streets as possible out of the disaster and you will to if you have family elsewhere.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 22, 2010 at 2:40 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Hwy. 84 will indeed take a lot of the traffic, but a road network is not an island. The Stoneridge extension will still be needed.

jj seems to agree that things should be fair, that roads should be built timed with other roads. Well, that's the issue with 84. Pleasanton didn't want to be fair to our regional partners, didn't want to build the extension, wanted to take it out of the General Plan. What could they do? Withhold their support for improving 84. They've got something we want. We've got something they want. How do we come to an agreement? We commit to building the extension.


Posted by Barry, a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on Jul 22, 2010 at 10:31 pm

Dearest sknywench,

I guess you never read the traffic reports showing extending 84 would be better for our traffic woes and the Stoneridge extension has little or no effect on the traffic mess. Please take a few minutes and read the reports... Your bottlenecks will still be there if Stoneridge is extended or not.....

What is the point of the Stoneridge Extension???? There is no there there! Sounds like uninformed rhetoric as usual....Maybe you can get FOX News to do a story for you...

Take care and keep 'em coming skny...

LET'S TAKE PLEASANTON BACK!






Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 22, 2010 at 10:34 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Hey Barry,

I guess you didn't read the traffic reports either. Without the extension then traffic through Pleasanton residential neighborhoods will increase!


Posted by Billie, a resident of Mohr Park
on Jul 22, 2010 at 11:04 pm

Stacey,
I have looked at the traffic reports, and, as I've said before on this forum, anyone looking for traffic relief on our most congested streets/intersections from the Stoneridge Dr. extension, needs to keep on looking.

Web Link

Take a look at Feb 24, 2009, Attachment 16 titled "LAFCo letter and City Response dated July 18, 2008". The pertinent charts start at pg. 6 of 9 (PDF doc) in the City's Sept 2008 response to LAFCO. As noted, the data was extracted from the "Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Report".

As you can see, the charts on Pg 6 reflect the Level of Service (LOS) and delay at several intersections. Keeping in mind that these documents are for Staples Ranch, the data is reflected under three scenarios: (1)Vacant Site No Stoneridge Extension (today), (2)Vacant Site with Stoneridge Extension (n/a), and (3)Project with Stoneridge Extension (future). The first chart is without signal timing and the second one is with signals optimized for the expected traffic volumes.

As documented on the PM commute for scenarios (1) and (3), the Santa Rita & Valley intersection LOS/delay increases from an E/67 to F/87 without timing and from an E/67.4 to E/72.2 with timing. No improvement. Santa Rita & Stoneridge intersection LOS increases from an D/35 to F/96 without timing and from C/32.6 to F/80.2 with timing. Both views of future LOS/delay at Santa Rita & Stoneridge are higher than Valley & Santa Rita today. I don't see any relief for residential neighborhood streets when the arterials are even busier than they are today.

Additional charts in this document reflect the impact on Livermore and Dublin intersections, arterials and the freeway. Not much improvement in any area.

That said, the Stoneridge Dr. extension should not have been used as an excuse to delay the Stoneridge Creek project. The builders of this project said years ago that they did not require the extension to move forward with their build. Supvr. Haggerty tied the project to the extension in a threatening letter sent to the city Oct 10, 2008 (Attachment 15). Of course, the funds he supposedly had have never, to my knowledge, been deposited in any account in anticipation of the extension being built. Given the state of the economy the end of 2008 and now, I doubt if they were, or are even now, available.




Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 22, 2010 at 11:45 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Billie wrote: "I don't see any relief for residential neighborhood streets when the arterials are even busier than they are today."

The intersections at the arterials show little to no improvement because the traffic that was going through the neighborhoods now goes to the streets they are supposed to go on, the arterials. Compare the bandwidth numbers on the residential streets in the different scenarios: with and without the extension.


Posted by Rick, a resident of Parkside
on Jul 23, 2010 at 10:02 am

I urge the council to get this done!


Posted by sknywench, a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jul 23, 2010 at 11:04 am

sknywench is a registered user.

I agree with Stacey when she said "Without the extension then traffic through Pleasanton residential neighborhoods will increase!"

To Dearest Barry et.al., I have read the traffic report and thanks for checking with me on that point. How can you hide behind fractional calculations of LOS delay. You honestly think people commuting on Valley from Hacienda to reach Livermore and Ruby Hill would not use Stoneridge when connected to Jack London/Isabel/Hwy 84? I plan on it instead of sitting at Santa Rita/Valley.




Posted by Barry, a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on Jul 23, 2010 at 1:51 pm

I agree skny... Those reports are clear as mud.....

580 usually is a nightmare from 3-6pm.. A Stoneridge cut through would only add more traffic to our surface streets from 580.. I think the 580 nightmare will just spill over to Stonridge and not be a long term solution... Valley and Stanley will still be a patking lot... We need long term and higher traffic volue answers like 84..
680 traffic can cut through on an expanded 84 to 580 and not have to come up to the very dangerous 580-680 interchange... We could divert 1000's and 1000's of cars from driving through P-Town.

Wow! I think I made sense... Maybe I SHOULD RUN FOR COUNCIL....

And my apologies to skny... I can get out of line sometimes...


Posted by Billie, a resident of Mohr Park
on Jul 23, 2010 at 1:54 pm

Sknywench,
I don't think anyone is hiding "behind fractional calculations of LOS delay". Also not sure anyone said Stoneridge *wouldn't* be used when extended. In fact, the point that it will be heavily used has always been known, and is clearly shown in the traffic study data.

Valley will be busier than it is today and Stoneridge will be busier than Valley.

Stacey,
The overflow from arterials that are even busier than they are today will still have to go somewhere - and with the kind of delay we will continue to look at, commuters will always be looking for a way around it.

All that said, however, the topic of this thread is the Stoneridge Creek project which should be approved to move forward, with or without the extension.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 23, 2010 at 2:11 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

I think it should be clarified that the traffic reports were modeling traffic at build-out and not with current traffic loads. I wouldn't want anyone here to get the impression that the increase in traffic is due to building roads, but due to regional growth in the next 30 years.


Posted by Billie, a resident of Mohr Park
on Jul 23, 2010 at 2:51 pm

Stacey,
The "build-out" that's referred to in the Draft EIR for Staples Ranch, as well as Attachment 16, the city's response to Supv. Haggerty, is the completion of the Staples Ranch projects.

From Attachment 16: "The Transportation section (referring to the Draft EIR) further clarifies that the estimated completion date for the Stoneridge Drive extension has yet to be determined. However City staff assumes that if it were to occur it would be after full build out of the proposed project."

And, as we all know, a full traffic analysis with mitigations was not originally included in the final EIR even after the Staples Ranch projects were tied to the SDE. It took a citizen's group to ensure the city looked at the impacts.

Of course, at the rate we're going, it could be 30 years until Staples Ranch is completed!

and I'm done for today. have a good one.


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

DSRSD's Kohnen Scholarship on Hold
By Roz Rogoff | 0 comments | 846 views

Pleasanton's water use matches Las Vegas
By Tim Hunt | 10 comments | 760 views

Fifty Ways to Craze Your Donors
By Tom Cushing | 0 comments | 715 views

When Adult Children Go Off to College: Keeping Your Eye on The Law
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 480 views

Be a sport: Send us your youth sports news, scores and photos
By Gina Channell-Allen | 0 comments | 426 views