Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Pleasanton's physical evolution between 1850 and 1970 resulted in a small-town feeling with <br />an outlying rural atmosphere. This is evidenced by the City's historic Downtown, older <br />residential neighborhoods, Alameda County Fairgrounds, Happy Valley f;mTling areas, etc. <br />Pleasanton residents cherish and desire to preserve and enhance this community character. <br />High quality business park development during the 1980s and 1990s and suburban <br />neighborhood development beginning in the 196C)'s and continuing today have also created <br />character design elements which the City strives to keep in perpetuate hannony with its past. <br />(I know, I am reading closely but I am looking for flow from sentence to sentence and <br />paragraph to paragraph!!!) <br />[J1]This wording can be substituted if desired, although I would delete "etc" from <br />the original. <br />9. Page 10-2, last paragraph, do we really think the Livermore Golf Course and the <br />Airport provide a maior separation between Pleasanton and Livermore??? They don't <br />physically touch our city limits do they? Once Livermore develops on their side ofEI <br />Charro, do we have a major separation? <br />[J1] This sentence states that the quarry lands, golf course and airport <br />"currently" provide a major separation. When both sides ofEI Charro Road are <br />developed as planned this will no longer be the case, at least in terms of a visual <br />separator as seen from 1-580. Policy 10 addresses the community separator issue <br />but focuses on Stanley Boulevard where it is more likely that a visual separation <br />can be maintained. <br />10. Page 10-3, last paragraph, if we know that we have limited walk ability of the city <br />currently, what is our plan to change that? <br />[JI] In this draft element it is addressed under Goal 6 (Program 17.3 and <br />Program 19.1). It will also be addressed in the Circulation and Land Use <br />elements. <br />II. Page 10-4, Pleasanton residents are trying to preserve the community character by not <br />building five story high density housing like Dublin. Do we define anywhere what the <br />residents are seeking in new development to protect the community character that we <br />love about our town? <br />[JI] It is addressed in the Goals, Policies and Programs section of this Draft <br />Element under Goal 2 related to the Downtown, and Goal 6 related to <br />Commercial Areas and Residential Neighborhoods. Other specific policies and <br />programs can be added if desired. <br />12. Page 10-5, is this where we should discuss the Alamo Canal under pass for the bicycle <br />and pedestrian trail connecting Pleasanton to Dublin and beyond?? <br />[J1]Yes. We can add the following sentence to the end of that paragraph. "The <br />City of Pleasanton is working in cooperation with the East Bay Regional Park <br />District, CalTrans, Zone 7 Water Agency and the City of Dublin to assess the <br />feasibility andfinancingfor an under freeway link of the Alamo Canal Trail. " <br />13. Page 10-5 under sustainability. Should we discuss the goals of making the city more <br />walk able, bike able, connecting the neighborhoods and open space with trails and bike <br />lanes etc? <br />[J1]The following bullet could be added to that section: "Trails, bike lanes and <br />other links that connect neighborhoods, schools, and open space for walkers and <br />bicyclists, and provide an alternative to auto travel. " <br />14. Where do we talk about maintaining a family oriented community which has been a <br />major contributor to the community character? <br />