1965 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr.. Falea reviewed the report a f the Planning Commission dated January 29, 1965 regarding the relocation 6f the Pine Avenue freeway interchange and Pine Avenue northerly to the south .bourdary d f the VCSD sewage treatment plant. The report also indicated `that .Valley Ave ,shotild1be extended as a major thoroughfare southwesterly of Hopyard Road to a ne4,freeway interchange in Route 680 at the approximate mid- point between the relocated pine Avenue interchange and the Bernal interchange. Mr. Fales read his to the City Council; dated February 11, 1965 regarding the above matterin whichhe stronglyrecommends that the location of Pine Avenue and the Pine Avenue 'interchange tie retained as indicated on the proposed General Plan, dated November 5, 1964; Hia are based on the. following reasons: 1. It is the existing policy of the City Communities, Inc., now before. the Aiarnada some 300 acres located adjacent to and on extension and interchange from inch: atrial Council that the,rei(uest of Volk- McLain C ounty Planning Commission, to rezone both aides of the proposed Pine Avenue to Residettial, be denied, Volk- McLain Communities, Inc. made the proposal to shift Pine Avenise northerly. It is believed that one of the reasons for this proposed relocation does not relate to traffic circulation principles at all, Hut does relate to the manufacture of an argument which may be utilized in order to secure residential zoning for the propert in question. If Pine Avenue is relocated on the General Plan, one of the most powerful arguments for the retention of industrial land use for the property in question will have been removed, in the eyes of Alameda County, and the property will be rezoned to residential, thus defeating one of the basic purposes of the General Plan, namely the retention of an industrial- residential land use balance. Even from a traffic circulation point of view, if Pine Avenue is relocated and a second interchange provided, and if this assumption is correct that rezoning fro industrial to residential will problably follow, not only for the Volk- McLain property but for all property south of Pine Avenue and north of the Arroyo Mocho, then a considerable portion of the justification for a second interchange and for a shift in the location of Pine Avenue dissolves, since the amount of projected freeway use which justifies two interchanges is based primarily upon industrial, not residential land use. Provision for an additional interchange and the relocatio of Pine Avenue northerly in order to create space for the additional interchange, therefore, becomes a fruitless and self- defeating endeavor. 2. The provision of an additional interchange on an extension of Valley Avenue as a major thoroughfare through a residential area is not desirable as should not be included in the Plan. The letter from Mr. R.A. Hayler, State Division of Highways, dated February 5, 1965, indicates that District IV will oppose an additional interchange location with Route 680 due to a lack of justification therefore, but does indicate that if future traffic results in a need, consideration could be given to an additional separation structure over the freeway, not an interchange, if this would result in improved local circulation and decreased traffic problems. 3. Mr. Hayler's letter also indicates that a change is the location of the proposed Pine Avenue interchange more than 100 or 200 feet from its presently proposed posit- ion some 300 feet north of the Arroyo Mocho, whould require approval of the State Highway Commission. This, he states, could take as long as six months, if indeed such approval is forthcoming. A subdivision map, based upon approved zoning, is now pending before the Alameda County Planning Commission which included not only a portion of the Pine Avenue interchange as indicated on the proposed General Plan, but also includes one -half of Pine Avenue from Route 680 to Foothill Road. This subdivision, submitted by the Schulte- Blackwell Development Company, could result in an early determination of the precise location and, possible, the actual start of construction on the proposed interchange, since State right -of -way acquisition and construction policies depend, in part, on protection in order to avoid development, on hardship conditions, and on traffic needs. In addition, the location of Pine Avenue on the proposed General Plan is in con formity, at least in the area west of Route680, with the established policy of locating major thoroughfares, where possible, along property lines, thereby limit- ing the financial liability of both adjoining property owners insofar as actual street construction in concerned. Relocation of Pine Avenue to the north would result in a routing of this major thoroughfare through properties on both the east and west sides of Route 680.