Town Square

Post a New Topic

Builder scuttles $10-million waterpark at Shadow Cliffs

Original post made on Dec 23, 2007

Plans for a multi-million-dollar California Splash waterpark that could have attracted tens of thousands of water enthusiasts to Pleasanton each summer have been scuttled, the Pleasanton Weekly has learned.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, December 21, 2007, 5:38 AM

Comments (23)

Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Dec 23, 2007 at 9:06 pm

It is interesting that no one has posted any comment to this story so far, yet the Waterpark has been and had continued to be controversial for the residents in this corner of Pleasanton.

I empathize with the principal who, as an entrepeneur, put himself at risk to carry out his business goals. However, in this case, there clearly was collateral damage to be caused when and if his goal was achieved. Nobody at the time this project was approved, I believe, felt that he was the "bad guy". However, there was great disappointment by some, including myself, that our council seemed to buy into the wonderfullness of the "bike" park that Pleasanton got in return for approval, and felt the bike park overrided the traffic congestion issues that this corner of Pleasanton suffers.

Fast forward to Home Depot and Stoneridge Extension/Staples Ranch issues of traffic flow that have recently been spot-lighted, and perhaps one may conclude in hindsight that the council at that time lacked foresight.

Let's address an obvious fact that almost no one seems to explicitly discuss. There are only THREE east/west cross valley through roads: I580, Stanley, and Vineyard. Home Depot and the Waterpark would have created increased load that would affect two of them, both Stanley and Vineyard, by increasing the load on a single intersection, Valley at Stanley. Yet, today there is still no overall traffic flow plan in the works by the city to alleviate present and future traffic in this part of town that I know of, except for the possible extension of Stoneridge. The prospect of a Stoneridge extension is still being held hostage by the self-interest of the residents of the more recently developed neighborhoods in that part of Pleasanton. A sound-wall protected, divided lane thoroughfare with limited access was paid for and constructed, yet it lies dead-ended, perhaps for eternity. I think it is past time that this road gets connected to El Charro.

Posted by Pete
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 24, 2007 at 4:19 pm

You said a mouth full, Frank. Lets Talk Turkey came very easily for you. Your "prospect" quote needs some work. Try digging a smudge deeper, than self interest. I respect your passion to comment regularly. Perhaps, articulating a few choice questions, within a survey, visiting various neighborhoods, would provide foresight. I sense our Mayor and Council would welcome your plan. Merry Christmas.

Posted by Jerry
a resident of Oak Hill
on Dec 25, 2007 at 2:00 am

Perhaps the "self-interest residents" of that neighborhood don't wish their neighborhood to become another Stanley Blvd or I-680 caused by cut through traffic - as Stoneridge has already become via the I-680/I-580 ramps during commute hours. All one has to do to understand this is happening is merely watch the amout of traffic that flows through the I-680/Stoneridge ramps and the I-580/Santa Rita ramps during the commute hours or follow this traffic through town. Would be interesting to monitor the license plates that use these ramps for one week.

Would it be foolish to believe those living in "quiet" neighborhoods would welcome the amount of traffic that a Stoneridge/El Charro connection could produce - or is it that those "self-interest residents" are just selfish/don't see "the big picture" that those that will not be effected see. Just wondering.......

Sound-walls are not the magic cure traffic engineers would have one believe. Ask anyone's opinion that has lived beside/near one.

Posted by Norah
a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Dec 26, 2007 at 8:34 pm

I, for one am thrilled that this project took a nosedive. I already see what kind of crowd Shadow Cliffs attracts on a Saturday in August and I was dreading this whole park from the beginning.

Go to San Jose or Concord to cool down!

Posted by Joe
a resident of Birdland
on Dec 26, 2007 at 9:34 pm

I second Norah's comments. We don't need the type of element the water park would attract in our town. The mall is already bad enough for that.

Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Dec 26, 2007 at 9:44 pm

The subject of this thread is the scuttled waterpark project, but at the end of my beginning post I broached the underlying issue why Pleasanton residents really care about the subject, and it is not because they will miss sliding down water slides. But rather the interest lies in the growing traffic debacle that only gets worse: Santa Rita-to-Valley-to-Stanley.

Santa Rita at Valley and Valley at Stanley are the worst traffic impacted intersections in Pleasanton today. This is not a theoretical, but has been a fact now for a number of years. A Stoneridge extension, a road built to accomodate through traffic with controlled and limited egress and ingress, and further, sound wall protected, would clearly and effectively carry through traffic that it obviously does not today.

Whether it becomes a horrible nightmare for the adjacent neighborhoods is a theoretical, not an actuality.

The road infrastructure is modern and does not compare to Santa Rita to Valley to Stanley in either this respect or to the number of non-cut-through traffic movements that have to co-mingle with the cut-through traffic movements, which is an infinitely greater number than would ever occur on the future Stoneridge extension. After all, Santa Rita at Valley is really a major traffic intersection for traffic movements internal to Pleasanton. Additionally, cut-through traffic on a future Stoneridge extension would be limited by the metering light at El Charro, and therefore may not rise to an intolerable number, a point that Stoneridge dead-enders ignore.

In my post I raised the point that the self-interest of people in those adjacent neighborhoods is to have no such traffic at all if they insist it remains dead-ended.

Now it is, admittedly, the self-interest of other residents in large parts of Pleasanton that are actually impacted by the above mentioned intersections to see that the original traffic flow plan using the Stoneridge extension is carried out, and not blocked by neighborhood factions. This traffic flow plan is not new, but has existed for years before those neighborhoods were built.

Yes, it is clearly the self-interest of one set of residents versus the self-interest of another set that is continually at play. In my post above I did not imply that I expected anyone to be happy, but in the back of my mind I still expected residents, new and old, to share the load of traffic in our city. I simply said the one group acts out of self-interest when they block the extension. A simple, but true statement. I expect, however, that residents who move into new neighborhoods accessed by a divided thru-way like Stoneridge should not dead-end it in perpetuity at the expense of a large number of other residents who expected that particular roadway would be completed so the traffic flow through Pleasanton would improve as a net gain to all residents. This expectation, I assert, is not unfair.

Posted by Open Stoneridge!
a resident of Country Fair
on Dec 27, 2007 at 8:37 am

Frank, you make a great point. I couldn't agree with you more. Stoneridge needs to be opened up in order to alleviate the clogged arteries of traffic that we face each day.

The water park isn't so much of an issue of who it would have attracted, but how many it would've attracted and Pleasanton's poor plans as to how they were going to accommodate the additional traffic. I could only imagine what a mess this would've been if plans would've proceeded. We need to learn how to walk before we can crawl.... solve the traffic mess and then revisit businesses that will increase flow of traffic.

Posted by ccwc
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Dec 28, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Never did understand why Pleasanton would scrap the idea of a Home Depot but bring on a huge waterpark!

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 28, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Time to face the music, Pleasanton. You majority keep voting into office city leaders who pay lip service to Pleasanton's traffic woes with promises to not build any new roads or connections (think W. Los Positas interchange). Well, look at the traffic mess Pleasanton is in now, huh? In the past 10 to 15 years of not improving the overall road infrastructure, traffic has only gotten worse. Maybe you majority who think that building new roads will cause more traffic need to take another look at your position before gridlock finally locks you all into your little neighborhoods once and for all. And yes, you too Stoneridge residents, will be locked in with no way out when Santa Rita slows to a crawl with the projected amount of traffic expected without a Stoneridge extension. Or do you like the idea of cutting through someone else's neighborhood to get to Mohr or Valley?

In the meantime, I'll still cast my minority vote (as it has been for the last decade) for the candidates who will strive to improve our road infrastructure based upon well-researched procedures instead of majority opinions.

Posted by Jerry
a resident of Oak Hill
on Dec 29, 2007 at 2:20 am

Where is all this traffic on Santa Rita Rd. and the Santa Rita/Valley Intersection originating and what is it's destination. Could a majority be cut-through or is that just speculation.

Would a link between the San Jaquin Valley and I-680, south of Livermore and Pleasanton (with a connection to both cities), help ease the traffic problems in the entire Tri-Valley.

Wait!!! Forget that -- that was already proposed by a former Ca. Representative and immediately shot down by "environmentalist" as a "creator of more housing" in that area.

Also wondering if the Stoneridge Extention is completed how many lobbying for the extention would volunteer to live in that "self-interest neighborhood" with those wonderful soundwalls - or would we all just be satisfied, and thankful, to live in our little neighborhoods where our kids can cross the street without worrying about cut through traffic traveling at sub-freeway speeds.

Just wondering again...............

Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Dec 31, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Stoneridge Drive Extension from Santa Rita to the Dead End: There are only five connecting streets to this limited access throughway before it dead-ends. There are NO driveways or houses on this street (except the church)! Furthermore, there is little to no reason for children to have to cross this street except perhaps at Santa Rita since most of the neighborhoods are located south of the drive and are internally contained by design. The neighborhood school is south and internal to the neighborhood and no street crossings of Stoneridge are required.

Ingress to and egress from these neighborhoods are Rheem Dr., Kamp Dr., Newton Way, Guzman Pky, and Trevor Pky. Let's contrast this with a neighborhood I previously lived in for 13 years which lies just north of the recently built neighborhood that is owned by the Stoneridge Drive complainants.

West Las Positas formerly was a possible through route to El Charro, long before the Stoneridge extention(sic) was built. The problem with West Las Positas is that an extremely large number of houses already sit on this street with driveway access. Furthermore, there are 17 side streets that access this drive. To put this drive through to El Charro would have certainly created the problems that current Stoneridge opponents are claiming would be applicable to their through-street, a claim clearly not true.

The Stoneridge segment at issue is not at all comparable, by design! Soundwalls, limited access, all were part of the plan to provide for a sensible cross town connection to El Charro. If the complainants were handed a West Las Positas situation, I would be first in line to oppose any extension.

Now for us critics. How would we like living adjacent to Stoneridge if it went through to El Charro. Well, here's my answer: it would be no different to what I already experience. I am four doors away from Vineyard, which has appreciable cut through traffic as well as all of the Ruby Hill traffic. And there are no soundwalls. Furthermore, we get a lot of noise off the valley floor from trains and Stanley Blvd. On days when we have a temperature inversion in the valley we even hear the noise from I580, which is a considerable distance. And, you do too, no matter where you live in Pleasanton!

So, get over it. Share with the rest of us who live in Pleasanton the consequences of living in a larger community, one that extends well beyond the city limits of Pleasanton. Don't try to build moats around Pleasanton. Stoneridge built through to El Charro would very likely have little effect upon the adjacent neighborhood compared to what other neighborhoods already experience.

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 1, 2008 at 9:40 am


Actually, there is some sort of small-capacity private school off of Stoneridge over there. I'll never understand the logic of whoever decided in the first place that 1) putting a school there would be a good idea and 2) putting residential there would be a good idea. I was too young at the time but would have opposed such development when it was known even back then that Stoneridge was to be built as a thoroughfare to Livermore. Mitigations like the soundwall and pedestrian-unfriendly design help, but the average person doesn't care about mitigations in a development plan and complains anyway. Maybe that neighborhood could foot the bill for Pico's tunnel.

I wonder how many people here know that Jack London in Livermore used to bare the name West Los Positas?

Posted by Brad
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jan 4, 2008 at 11:06 am

Regarding the water park, Home Depot, etc. Doesn't it seem obvious that the core problem we have is that the people of Pleasanton keep electing leaders that don't have the same values as the majority of residents? The majority of the residents of Pleasanton (I believe) moved here because this as a very nice, upscale community along the lines of Danville, Los Gatos, Orinda, etc. The elected officials we have in Pleasanton apparently see our town as the same seedy backwater burg it was 20 or more years ago. So to them, what's the big deal with putting a water park in town that will draw the rabble from 50 miles around? Concord and San Jose have them, why shouldn't Pleasanton? We the people hear that and say, "Exactly! Pleasanton IS NOT Concord or San Jose!" Our elected leaders think nothing of putting a big box home improvement store in the middle of town. After all, Mountain View has one. We the people say, "Exactly! Pleasanton is not Mountain View! We are Pleasanton!" Then city council, the media, etc. lament all of the conflict that occurs with these issues. The contentious city council meetings, the petitions to overturn council decisions, neighborhood vs. neighborhood. These are all a result of a city council and planning commission that is grossly out of step with its constituents. Pleasanton didn't become the wealthiest small city in America because Livermore and Dublin were full. People moved here for the amenities, the downtown, the small town feel, and yes, the exclusiveness of the Pleasanton brand. Let's start electing leaders who see Pleasanton as the rest of us see upscale community with small town appeal and let's stop electing rubes and aging hippies who still see this as "P-Town."

Posted by MountainViewhasNoHomeDepots
a resident of Rosepointe
on Jan 4, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Actually, Mountain View doesn't have a Home Depot and never has, as Pleasanton City Hall staff members said it did when they were presenting the information to the elected City Council of Pleasanton (Pleasanton City Hall staff claimed Mountain View had two Home Depots back in the May 2007 presentation at the City Council). The elected officials for the most part (except maybe one exception) consistently vote to approve every development. All the Planning Commission voted yes for Home Depot except Ann Fox, who voted no.

The voters of Mountain View rejected it when corporate Home Depot gathered signatures and tried to put it on the ballot a few years ago. The City Council of Mountain View just banned Home Depot again a few weeks ago when it tried a third time to put a Home Depot in Mountain View.

Here is the link from the Mountain View Voice where you see the entire Home Depot issue in Mountain View --- interestingly, the Mountain View Voice is also owned by Embarcadero Publishing, the publisher of the Pleasanton Weekly. For the entire saga, search the Mountain View Voice web site... Web Link

Uploaded: Friday, December 14, 2007, 4:36 PM

Home Depot all but barred from San Antonio

by Daniel DeBolt
Mountain View Voice Staff

Home Depot's future at the San Antonio shopping center took a significant turn for the worse last week when a majority of the City Council voted to oppose big box "industrial" stores at the center.

If the council vote holds, it could end Home Depot's 12-year effort to bring a store to Mountain View. The 5-1 study session vote may become formal in the coming weeks as city staff draft new language for the shopping center's precise plan.

The council had split 3-3 on the project earlier this year, but while talking to the Voice on Monday, members unanimously stated their opposition to Home Depot's plans.

What had likely changed the mind of members Nick Galiotto, Tom Means and Jac Siegel was a letter received in May which stated that the company wasn't going to bring an "Expo" type store targeting homeowners. Instead, the company said, it intended to open a typical Home Depot catering to contractors.

In an e-mail, Galiotto wrote that "While I originally believed it was possible for Home Depot to craft a store that was sufficiently upscale from their typical version, it wasn't apparent that they intended to do that."

Council member Ronit Bryant, who had proposed the study session, would not say that last week's vote killed the Home Depot project outright. Instead, she said, the council simply wanted to limit the shopping center to smaller stores with a plan to improve its "walkability." With Home Depot not specifically on the agenda, few residents showed up to speak.

Home Depot's Kathryn Gallagher, senior manager of communications, said in an e-mail that "Home Depot is aware that the council is contemplating the future of the shopping center and looks forward to being a part of those discussions. Our store is under design and we're confident we can work with the city to become a positive part of the community."

Council member Tom Means was the only dissenting vote last Tuesday because he felt the council wasn't being forthright with Home Depot. "I probably should have switched my vote," he said Monday.

Council member Margaret Abe-Koga said that while the council didn't specifically talk about Home Depot, they had likely killed the project in an unusually roundabout way.

"Obviously they were very disappointed," Means said about the Home Depot representatives in the room. "They didn't like the way it was coming up and the way they were being treated. I probably got a little frustrated with other council members. I wasn't my usually chummy self."

Home Depot could bring increased sales tax revenue to the city, but its potential arrival has raised concerns on the council about the increased presence of day workers, who already stand nearby along El Camino Real. There were also concerns that truck traffic from deliveries and customers would be higher than with an Expo -- or with the Sears that is there now.

"We're not going to put it in the middle of our city," said Mayor Laura Macias, "with access only to Highway 101 on one of the busiest streets between Sunnyvale and Palo Alto, which is San Antonio Road."

Several years ago Home Depot lost a bid for a site next to Highway 85, where Camino Medical Group now exists on El Camino Real. The company had pulled plans for an Expo store at that site as well.

"They are bad neighbors, classically," said Siegel. "They cause a lot of noise. Cupertino continually gets complaints. If we allow something like that to go in, it's there for the next 50 to 75 years -- its semi-permanent."

Without Home Depot, it's unclear what would replace Sears when its lease expires in February 2009. Bryant hopes it will be something that can be an anchor for smaller stores. But in the long term the council hopes to totally revamp the shopping center.

"To me it's pretty obvious the kind of place we should have," Bryant said. "I hope we move forward to develop something."

Abe-Koga said she was excited by the opportunity. The center's precise plan, a council-approved guide for its development, is already very good in most respects, she said. But it's often mentioned that the center's various owners have never agreed on how to redevelop it.

"I know there was a time when the owners were getting together to remodel it," Abe-Koga said. "Unfortunately they stopped that talk in the 1990s. We could find a way to 'incentivize' the owners if they are willing to work with us."

At the end of the meeting, the council directed staff to come up with amendments to the precise plan to clearly exclude big box hardware stores like Home Depot. The council will vote on the revised language in the coming weeks.

Member Matt Pear recused himself due to the proximity of some of his property to the proposed location.

"If it goes like it did Tuesday night," Means said, "the Home Depot project is dead."


1994: Emporium, a department store which had been in business for more than 25 years on El Camino Real, closes down.

1995: Home Depot signs lease to retain control of the site for about 50 years.

1995: Council approves Home Depot "Expo," a design center showroom that would have had less large-truck traffic. Soon after, Home Depot announces it is no longer interested in building an Expo.

Between 1995 and 1997: Home Depot subleases site for development of a Westin Hotel and Leisure sports complex. Westin approved by council in June 1997.

September 1998: Home Depot informs city that Westin/Leisure Sports complex is not going forward.

Jan. 25, 2000: Council approves site for hotel, office, small-scale retail or other sites but not for big-box retail like Home Depot.

November 2000: While Rosemary Stasek, one of the most vocal opponents of Home Depot, is running for City Council, Home Depot calls residents asking about their support for candidates.

January 2001: The city asks for conceptual drawings and ideas to address traffic and noise issues for a big-box store at the site.

July 31, 2001: The night that the City Council will be presented with the plans and vote on re-zoning, Home Depot pulls its request.

September 2001: Home Depot begins gathering signatures to put re-zoning the site on the ballot for 2002.

Oct. 26, 2001: Planning Commissioner Carol Moholt says a caller soliciting support for Home Depot claimed the call was coming from the Registrar of Voters.

Nov. 22, 2001: Home Depot announces it has not gotten enough signatures for March ballot. The City Council, however, puts the issue on the ballot anyway to avoid a costly special election.

March 5, 2002: The city overwhelmingly votes against Home Depot's Measure N, which would have allowed big-box retail on the old Emporium site.

February 2005: Construction crews take wrecking balls to the old Emporium building to make way for Camino Medical Group's new facility, which received support from those who opposed Home Depot.

May 15, 2006: Home Depot applies with the city to take over the old Sears site at San Antonio Center.

Nov. 9, 2006: Home Depot unveils plans for a completely rebuilt store at the old Sears site and meets with less public opposition than in the past.

Dec. 5, 2006: Home Depot holds an informational open house at the Mountain View Senior Center. Though 2,000 fliers were sent to local residents, attendance is light. The company says it is building an Expo-type store which is more attractive to homeowners.

February 2007: In a surprising turnaround, San Antonio Center signs a three year lease extension with Sears, though Home Depot says that won't affect its plans for the site.

March 6, 2007: Council holds study session on Home Depot, where it is unclear if there is enough support for a project at San Antonio. At least three of six members raise concerns about the store's appearance, traffic and day worker issues. No decisions are made.

May 2007: In a letter to the city, Home Depot withdraws its plans for an Expo store, says it would build a regular Home Depot.

Dec. 4, 2007: City Council directs staff to come up with amendments to the San Antonio precise plan -- to be approved at a later date -- which would exclude big box stores like Home Depot.

I applaud the City Council's efforts to prevent a 'big box' store like Home Depot from coming to San Antonio shopping center. I found it interesting that this story was next to the one on the Community School of Music and Arts (who have their new building just across the street from Sears). It would be a step in the wrong direction to put a big ugly Home Depot there. The store is a warehouse style shop which would not fit in the area at all. The San Antonio Center is more a place for families to shop for clothes and household goods.
Posted by MV_Resident007, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Dec 14, 2007 at 7:40 pm


Posted by Spike
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2008 at 3:41 pm


Right on!!! You have identified the root cause of the problem...which is the ineptness of the current Mayor and City Council!!!

Time for a change!!!!

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 4, 2008 at 4:05 pm

The root cause is the majority who vote ineptness into office, not like Brozosky would have been any different.

Posted by chas
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:01 am


A lot of us moved here because we enjoyed the small town atmosphere, and we would like to keep it that way as much as possible. It offers stability and a safer environment. If you don't like the traffic on Vineyard move someplace else. Extending Stoneridge and West Las Positas will only make matters worse, because a large percentage of our current traffic woes are people from other cities using Pleasanton streets as a bypass. Since you don't live in any of the neighborhoods that would be affected by those extensions, please keep that opinion to yourself.

Posted by chas
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:01 am


A lot of us moved here because we enjoyed the small town atmosphere, and we would like to keep it that way as much as possible. It offers stability and a safer environment. If you don't like the traffic on Vineyard move someplace else. Extending Stoneridge and West Las Positas will only make matters worse, because a large percentage of our current traffic woes are people from other cities using Pleasanton streets as a bypass. Since you don't live in any of the neighborhoods that would be affected by those extensions, please keep that opinion to yourself.

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:25 am


You have data that proves that the majority of our traffic woes are due to people from other cities bypassing us? Interesting that our own city staff can't come up with those kinds of numbers!

Now this is the problem I see. Most residents somehow think all this traffic is due to "other people" while we forget that Pleasanton's population swells to almost double as the day progresses from people who work and shop here.

BTW, I live in a neighborhood that will be affected by the increase of traffic on Santa Rita if the extensions are NOT built. So keep your "our neighborhood vs their neighborhood" attitude to yourself.

Posted by chas
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:38 am


Sorry, but I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an un-armed person. You just said yourself that most of our traffic woes are caused by transients, not residents.

Suffice to say that the city cannot extend some streets for the benefit of those shopping or working or traveling through Pleasanton at the cost of residents who have homes in those neighborhoods. You should have known that traffic would be an issue on Santa Rita and picked elsewhere to buy.

Posted by Shelley
a resident of Downtown
on Jan 11, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Actually the Pleasanton Heights and Vintage Hills neighborhoods ARE affected by the Stoneridge extension! Currently, Stanley and Vineyard are the only other routes to Livermore that are not 580. Adding Stoneridge alieves the traffic on Valley, Stanley and Vineyard going to Vintage Hills, Kottinger, Pleasanton Heights, and yes, Livermore. I'm sure that everyone who complains about "cut-through traffic" never cut-through other cities to get to their destination, because that would be contradictory to their cause, right? <sarcasm> I'm sure nobody who opposes the Stoneridge extension ever uses Stanley or Vineyard to get to Livermore. I'm also sure that nobody who opposes the Stoneridge extension use Doughtery or Tassajara to get to San Ramon or Danville. <sarcasm>
I have an idea, why don't we close all the freeway exits in Pleasanton, that way, nobody can use our streets, because you know, the streets aren't there to be driven on. They're there only for aesthetic value.
Let's look at Sunol Blvd. to First St. to Stanley. All that traffic is going through Pleasanton to get to Livermore and beyond, OMG! We better close that 680 exit into Pleasanton too because the houses along First St. are losing value and that "small town" feeling of Downtown is diminishing! <sarcasm>

Note: I added <sarcasm> to these comments for those who are too dense to notice it.

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2008 at 12:11 pm

It is not cut-through traffic if the drivers stop here to work or spend money (which adds to our tax revenue). These are _not_ people who are "bypassing" Pleasanton and in most cases would probably love to live here instead of having to commute in and out of here. And if you want to deal with the traffic problem you'll need to understand the difference between transient and cut-through because otherwise you'll just be laughed at.

Moreover, I find it highly selfish of you to suggest that the city cannot improve the basic street infrastructure (which would be beneficial only to you) and then you are willing to let your other Pleasanton neighbors suffer by telling them they should not live there. Maybe I should have moved into Pleasanton Meadows because then I would agree with you? Is that what you are suggesting? Even Pleasanton Meadows is negatively affected by traffic on Santa Rita and would be worse off with no extension. You're cut off from downtown Pleasanton more than I am since I can take Greenwood all the way while you have to go onto Santa Rita. Maybe you should be the one moving so when your hated Stoneridge extension is built you won't have to be near it.

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2008 at 12:20 pm


That's a great idea! Close off all of Pleasanton from non-resident traffic. We can put in a Fastrak system for residents entering and leaving then have tollbooths and charge entrance fees to non-residents. That will provide enough funds to the City for the Bernal park!

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Pop open the beer at the holiday table
By Deborah Grossman | 3 comments | 991 views

I Do I Don't: How to build a better marriage Page 15
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 986 views

Local foundation tracks the state of giving here
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 378 views


Support local families in need

Your contribution to the Pleasanton Weekly Holiday Fund will go directly to nonprofits supporting local families and children in need. Last year, Pleasanton Weekly readers contributed over $83,000 to support eight safety-net nonprofits right here in the Tri-Valley.