PC 03/13/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

. . . David C. Jones, 1605 Rose Avenue - Under Public Facilities, he could not fmd any listing of the Fairgrounds as a public facility . - Questions Options 2,3,4, page 10. Option 2 is the only option available to vote on in the General Plan. - Page 32 Improvements Table, was clarified by staff as being a table of improvements to existing intersections, - Page 106, Table 9, Sub alternative Rose Avenue, Options 2, 3, 4. Mr. Jones inquired as to the owners referenced as Composite Owners Request. Mr. Jones inquired if he would be considered for higher density if the Rose Avenue extension goes through. Mr. Rasmussen advised if he would like to request a higher density, this could be evaluated in the Final EIR. A request should be submitted by March 22nd. - Page 160, Circulation of Rose Avenue, Option I and 2. He believes this land is under Agricultural Reserve; Del Valle Parkway is not mentioned as an alternate route. Questioned why Pleasanton Avenue and Bernal were not indicated. Spoke about the EIR statements of traffic circulation around the Fairgrounds. Mr. Jones further indicated that Rose Avenue was identified as a critical intersection and inquired if the General Plan would identify funding sources. In response to Mr. Jones' questions about traffic figures, Mr. Rasmussen thought that he and Mr. Jones should meet with Mr. Van Gelder who established the traffic model and he could more specifically answer his questions. Further discussion ensued regarding the fact that the City does not own nor has been offered the Alameda County Fairgrounds land for a future extension of Rose Avenue. Mr. Rasmussen noted that there may be a problem in acquiring ownership, and this is an important consideration for the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Jones would like to be shown Intersection 821 and the proposed Rose Avenue extension. Mr. Rasmussen said that a more specific alignment could be identified for the road than the one shown in the General Plan. John Spotorno, Sycamore Road, spoke about the feasibility of the two-acre lot size minimum in South Pleasanton. This should be analyzed by staff in the Final EIR. Mr. Spotorno also is concerned about the Urban Growth Boundary. He stated it is interesting to note that there is about a 3 percent difference in the Steering Committee's recommendations and the property owners recommendations. He believes this is due to the fact that the San Francisco property has been analyzed at a constant level (2,257 units). The fInal density of this property will have a great effect on the other proposals. Page 121, Land Use Sub-alternative 2, part of the 45 acre portion of the Spotorno property is being changed from Open Space to Low Density. In 1986 it was determined there could be 30-45 units on this land, so this land was not always considered Open Space land. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 March 13, 1996