|
<br />Mr. Files said that, under Community Facilities, Dr. Haskell requested that the
<br />high school cite be changed from northwest to south~~Test of the Pine Avenue-Route 68•.
<br />interchange. Following discussion by the Commission, upon motion of Commissioner
<br />Antonini, seconded by Commisoioner Lozano, the following rescl.ction was adopted by
<br />unanimcua voce:
<br />RESOLU;I0:1 N0, ?9~
<br />RESOLVED;
<br />The City Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City
<br />Council the following:
<br />1. The high school site indicated on the proposed General
<br />Plan, dated November 5, 1964, as located immediately
<br />northwest of the Pine Avenue-Route 680 interchange be
<br />changed to a location immediately southwest of the same
<br />interchange.
<br />2. The Neighborhood Shopping Center and Highway Commercial
<br />area indicated on the Proposed General Plan, dated November 5,
<br />1964, as located immediately southwest of the Pine Avenue-
<br />Route 6fl0 interchange be removed from the General Plan as
<br />adopted by the City Council.
<br />3. A public park be shown on the General Plan in Tract No.
<br />2591.
<br />Mr. Files then presented to the Commi.saion the referral from the City Council of
<br />the relocation of the Del Valle Parkway, with which the City's Planning Consult-
<br />ants concurred. Mr, Richard Irby, owner of 10 acres of property in the area,
<br />was present in the audience and commented on the parkway relocation. After dis-
<br />cussion by the Cov®isaion, upon motion of Commissioner Antonini, seconded by
<br />Commissioner Lozano, the following resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of
<br />those Commissioners present:
<br />RESOLUTION N0, 396
<br />RESOLVED:
<br />The City Planning Coa~ission hereby recommends to the City Council
<br />that the Del Valle Parkway be relocated from its position on the
<br />Proposed General Plan, dated November 5, 1964, between First
<br />Street and Pico Avenue, to a location north, rather then south,
<br />of the Arroyo del Valle, with a bridge indicated near the inter
<br />section of the Del Valle Parkway and Pico Avenue,
<br />Mr. Files said that the matter of the location of the Pine Avenue extension, which
<br />the Planning Commission, at the meeting of 7anuary 27, 1965, recommended to the
<br />City Council be moved north, at this time, subsequent to the receipt of three
<br />letters, including that of the State Division of Highways dated February 5, 1965,
<br />and further testimony given at the meeting of February 10, 1465, against moving
<br />the Pine Avenue extension northerly, has been referred by the City Council back
<br />to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Mr. Kenneth Volk, of Volk-McLain
<br />Communities, Inn., spoke supporting the northerly location of the Pine Avenue
<br />extension, and stated that he believes two interchanges would be good for the City
<br />of Pleasanton, and that this follows the plan of Alameda County. Mr. Mitchell
<br />Baird, of Wilbur Smtth ~ Associates, stated, on behalf of Mr. Volk, that many
<br />years of consideration have been given to this item dating back to 1958. He stated
<br />further that it would be in the interest of the community to locate one inter-
<br />change so that when and if a second interchange hecomes necessary it could be
<br />provided, He also commented on the Letter received by the City from Mr. R.A. Hayler
<br />of the State Division of Highways, dated February 5, 1965. Dr. Howard Long was
<br />present in the audience and mentioned that Mr. Blayney had stated that the inter-
<br />changes as Qropoaed by Mr. Valk would make for poorer circulation in the community.
<br />Mr. Fal¢s said that Mr. Blayney indicated that a single interchange would hold the
<br />expected volume of traffic. Interchanges have been constructed when the traffic
<br />has warranted it at locations aL which they would not have been lccated at any
<br />given time. It has been valuable. said Mr. Files, to have the consultants and the
<br />Coamieaion take a second look et L-hls q uestion, aitFough it has not changed his
<br />opinion, nor that of Mr. Elayney, as he spo!te ro Mr. Blayney on the phone today
<br />and he hard no further comments. 9fter dl.ecusai~n by the Co®iaeion, upon motion
<br />of Commi ssioner Antonini, seconded by Commissicner Lozano, the following resolu-
<br />tion waei adopted by unanimous vote of those Commissioners present:
<br />
|