|
7. Circulatf_on
<br />a. The amity staff suggested that the location of the Del Valle Parkway
<br />between its intersection with First Street-Stanley Boulevard on the
<br />west and Pico Avenue on the east be shifted to the north of the
<br />Arroyo del Valle, ;pith a bridge indicated in the vicinity of Pico
<br />Avenue.
<br />This suggestion was based upon considerable previous study given
<br />this matter by the staff as a result of various previous requests
<br />of the Commission.
<br />Mr. Blayney concurred with this suggestion.
<br />b. Pine Avenue Extension. The Cos~nission received written communications
<br />regarding this matter as follows;
<br />(1) Letter dated February 5, 1965, from R.A. Hayler, Deputy District
<br />Engineer, District IV, State Division of Highways.
<br />(2) Letter dated February 10, 1:+65, frcm Kenneth Q. Volk, Jr., Volk-
<br />McLain Communities, inc.
<br />(3) Copy of a letter dated February 10, 1965, to Mr. William Fraley
<br />and Mr. James Vivrette, from Kenneth Q. Volk, Jr., Volk-McLain
<br />Communities, Inc.
<br />The Commission also heard information from tor. Ted Fairfield, MacKay and Somps,
<br />Mr. Schulte, Schulte-Blackwell Development Company, and Dr. Ray Haskell, re-
<br />lating, to the retention of the location of Pine Avenue and the Pine Avenue
<br />interchange with Interstate Route 680 as indicated on the Proposed General
<br />Plan dated November S, 1964.
<br />Mr. James M. Falea, Jr., City Manager, also addressed the Commission and
<br />indicated that he would forward a report to the City Council on February 15,
<br />1965, recommending the retention of Pine Avenue and the Pine Avenue inter-
<br />change with Route 680 as indicated on the Proposed General Plan, dated
<br />November 5, 1964.
<br />Mr. Fales presented a communication from Alan F. Grant, Alameda County Board of
<br />Zoning Adjustments, regarding a Uae Permit for an automobile wrecking yard in an
<br />"A-2" District, east side of Santa Rita Road, at southeast corner of Highway 50.
<br />Following dissuasion by the Commission, upon motion of Commissioner Antonini,
<br />seconded by Commissioner Rega, and carried, it was determined that Mr. Fales inform
<br />Alameda County that the Commission recommends an extension of three years, and that
<br />the permit is to be non-renewable at the end of that period of time.
<br />At this time, the City Attorney suggested an amendment to the minutes of January 27,
<br />1965. He suggested that Resolution No. 381 be changed from, "The City Planning
<br />Commission, as an initial report, hereby recommends ..." to read, "The City Planning
<br />Commission, as an initial report, hereby adopts and recommends ..." Upon motion
<br />of Commissioner Lozano, seconded by Commissioner Antonini, vote was unanimous to
<br />mmend Resolution No. 381 as recommended by the City Attorney.
<br />There being no further business t.o com-~ before the Commission, the meeting was ad-
<br />journed at 11:30 P.M., to meet again on Wednesday, February 24, 1965, at 8 P.M.
<br />
|