PC 02/10/65 - Laserfiche WebLink

The next item on the agenda was the discussion of possible C-0 land use; east aide of Sunol Blvd, (Wm. Marsh). Chairman Landon indicated he had spoken to Lee Amaral in connection with rezoning of this land. If there is an application made for R-1 zoning, it was determined that a temporary tract office could be allowed for one year. Mr. Struthers referred to Section 17.625 of the Zoning Ordinance which states that a trailer should. be on the grope=•ty of the developer. The wording and other aspects connected with this matter were not clear to the Commission, and the Com- mission requested M.r. Struthers to present a report at a later date, clarifying the wording of the Zoning Ordinance. The matter was then continued until such time as a formal application is made. The next item on the agenda was further consideration of Proposed Pleasanton Area General Plan. Mr. Fales presented two letters from the Division of Highways, dated January 27 and February 5, 1965. These letters indicated that District IV will oppose an additional interchange location with Route 680 due to a lack of justifica- tion therefor, but does indicate that if suture traffic results in a need, considera- tion 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. The letter further indicates that a change in the location of the pro- posed Pine Avenue interchange more than 100 er 200 feet from Its presently proposed position some 300 feet north of the Arroyo Mocho would require approval of the State Highway Commission. This could take as long as six months, if indeed such approval ie forthcoming. Mr. Fales then presented a letter Yrom Volk-McLain Communities, Inc., which stated that a letter had been sent to the Alameda County Planning Commission indicating their concurrence with an additional road located 5,000 feet south of Route 580. To quote, 'fie have reviewed the matter of interchange or street locations and any other location to the south on our property is not satisfactory due to the location of the Valley Community Services District Plant and its needs for expansion along with the location of the existing Army ponds and properties within our holdings north of Valley Community Services District lying between Route 680 and the Army ponds." The letter further stated that a representative would be present to record the deliberations of the Commission. Another letter from Volk-McLain Communities, Inc., addressed to Alameda County Planning Commission indicated same as above. The suggestion of two interchanges between Route 580 and Bernal Avenue located about one mile apart was given in this letter. Mr. John Blayney stated he did not agree with the need for a second interchange at this point, and that an over-crossing would not create a traffic problem. The inter- change as now located is on property line and is satisfactory. It would not be desirable to move the interchange with the possibility of six lanes of traffic going through a residential area. Mr. Falea, speaking as City Manager, urged the Commission to retain the location of Pine Avenue and the Pine Avenue interchange as indicated on the Proposed General Plan. Mr. Fales defined hie views as follows: That one of the reasons fot this proposed relocation by Volk-McLain does not relate to traffic circulation principles at all, but does relate to the manufacture of an argument which may be utilized in order to secure residential zoning for the property in question; That if Pine Avenue le relocated on the General Plan, one of the most powerful arguments for the re- tention of industrial land use for the property ?r_ question will have been removed, in the eyes of Alameda County, and the property w:11 be rezoned to residential, thus defeating one of the basic purposes of the General Plan, namely Che retention of an industrial-residential land use balance. The provision of an additional interchange on an extension of Valley Avenue as a major thoroughfare through a residential area is not desirable. Mr. Falea pointed out oace again the property line-interchange relationship as mentioned earlier by Mr, Blayney. The high school site south of Pine Avenue was mentioned and views expressed that, if needed in the future, an overcrosaing would be possible. Mr. Schulte, of Schulte-Blackwell Development Company, explained that the subdiviaior. submitted by the Schulte-Blackwell Development Company has been prepared based on the Pine Avenue location as shown on the General Plan. Any change in the interchange could mean six months of work they have done would new be of no value. Mr. Ted Fairfield concurred with Mr. Schulte and offered further testimony ae to why he felt Pine Avenue should remain as shown on the Proposed General Plan. Mr. Fairfield views were basically the same as those of Mr. Fales. Dr. Haskell agreed with the statement of Mr. Fales that the high school location, as located immediately south of the proposed Pine Avenue interchange, is astasfactory.