PC 04/01/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

. . . . . David Jones, 1605 Rose Avenue, made the following comments: Community Facilities, Page 11-6, the Alameda County Fairgrounds is not a publicly- owned operation. Section 2, Page 12, No.3, agricultural preserve lands should not be annexed. Mr. Jones commented that the Alameda County Fairgrounds is considered preserve lands. Therefore, the General Plan intention of extending Rose Avenue is in conflict with itself and brings up serious questions about the proposed road improvement. Housing Element, Section 4, page 11, he feels some constraints cause stagnation in housing development. He found discrepancy in Section 4, Page 45, Table 4 - miscalculates the amount of residential property in the Downtown residential area by 20 acres. He cited from the General Plan all areas where it states Rose A venue is part of the Downtown. He also noted that the General Plan encourages development in infill areas. He questioned why this property is continuously left out of the Land Use Program 3.1, the specific plan for residential portions of the Downtown. This constitutes 15% of the entire Downtown residential property. The Circulation Element supports the Rose Avenue extension to Valley Avenue without addressing the fact that the roadway could be funded now if the City would condemn the land that is needed. Neither the General Plan nor the EIR show where the proposed roadway will intersect with Valley Avenue. The General Plan is pushing this road improvement another ten years into the future. Mr. Jones feels that this is due to a lack of authority to plan across the Alameda County Fairgrounds, and he feels it is a holding action by the City of Pleasanton on his property. Even though the EIR deems this improvement as a benefit to the Downtown, there has been no recalculation of zoning density if the roadway were improved, as called for in the General Plan for the past thirty years. Further, the Community Character Element calls to enhance the visibility of the arroyo, of which this property has one-half mile frontage. The Regional Element called for new development to occur in a compact community-centered pattern. Mr. Jones feels the extension of Rose Avenue should be removed from the General Plan. Gary Schwaegerle, 189 West Angela St., favors eliminating the extension of Rose Avenue from the General Plan, believing it will cause cut-thtOugh traffic. Mr. Schwaegerle wants to proactively pursue a cultural arts/multi-purpose use facility close to the Downtown (on Case Avenue City-owned property) and a light rail station on the San Francisco property. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 April 1, 1996