PC 02/25/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

cross Valley to attend Alisal School. She suggests that aneast/west arterial street study be done before there is any further study of the general plan and specific plans. Chair Cooper noted that a study of the general plan and the specific plan would include a street study. She stated that Valley Avenue traffic should be the first priority of any study since that situation was created first. She said the 210 property owners in Danbury Park should be proportionately represented in any east side study. Stan Erickson, 3684 Chillingham Court, noted that the residents did not support the previous decisions made by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Therefore, the residents initiated a referendum which indicates their dissatisfaction with portion of the general plan. He noted that there was a strong community involvement in the collection of signatures and that there are many people involved from all azeas of the City who aze very strongly motivated to remain involved with this issue. He feels any study should include major community input and that the entire east side needs to be considered as a whole and not divided into pieces. Matt Sullivan, 4324 Muirwood Drive, stated that he is in support of an east side study. He feels that the existing general plan is not adequate to address the concerns of the residents. He, therefore, feels the general plan should be amended in the most broad manner possible. In addition, he would like the study to evaluate the impact of community development on schools, traffic, neighborhood services, infrastructure, and the environment. He also commented that the east side plan will affect the entire City. He further expressed concern with the connection of EI Chan•o, Stoneridge Drive, and Stanley, noting that traffic will become significantly heavier and much less safe. Tom Gill, 4540 Muirwood Drive, stated that he is a west side resident, and he is concerned about the east side of the City. He also noted that the entire city is affected by any east side development. In addition, he stated that if the City approves the West Las Positas interchange, it will likely be referended, and the opposition will not stop. He also expressed extreme disappointment that this issue was put at the end of the agenda, noting the many of the people have left due to the late hour. He accused staff of putting the issue at the end of the Agenda in order to discourage community input. In addition, Mr. Gill expressed concern with what he feels aze unsafe, overcrowded streets and overcrowded schools. He takes exception to the fact that a lot of the increased traffic and congestion is from people who work in Pleasanton, but live somewhere else. He feels that the General Plan has a lot of good elements to it, but that city staff only evaluates the level of service. Mr. Gill further noted that he lives neaz a park and over 3,000 cars pass his home daily, but there are no mitigation factors for the surrounding residents. He strongly voices his opinion that the residents aze sick of the traffic in Pleasanton. Commissioner Wright advised Mr. Gill that the item was not put on the Agenda to discourage community input. Chair Cooper accepted responsibility for the placement of the item, noting that the Commission previously agreed to hear items of regular business before long public hearings. In response to a question by Chair Cooper, Mr. Gill stated that he worked in Santa Claza County. Chair Cooper pointed out that Santa Claza residents may feel the same way as he does with regard to people from other cities crowding their streets. Mr. Gill stated that his point is that the City is violating the General Plan by allowing over 3,000 cars to travel through his neighborhood. A vigorous exchange of words took place between Chair Cooper and Mr. Gill. Chair Cooper apologized, noting that he feels Planning Commission Page 19 February 25, 1998