Laserfiche WebLink
Rose Avenue Extension <br /> <br /> Mr. Rasmussen stated that David Jones has requested that the Rose Avenue extension be <br />deleted from the General Plan. The Steering Committee and Planning Commission have not <br />recommended a change, but because of Mr. Jones' requests, staff wanted to bring that to <br />Council' s attention. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet appreciated the position of Mr. Jones. He felt Council should make the <br />decision to do whatever is necessary to get Rose Avenue through or abandon the idea of having <br />it go through. <br /> <br /> Ms. Micheloff felt that having the Rose Avenue extension on the General Plan has <br />caused some problems. Development can only be approved if the road is extended and the road <br />cannot be extended because the Fair Board will not allow it. She felt there should be some study <br />to consider what happens if the road were extended to a cul de sac with emergency access only <br />and what type of densities would be allowed. How can Council assist this to happon? There <br />were properties that were of a low elevation and required a particular type of pump. There are <br />many aspects of this situation. The question is whether to keep it in the General Plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if any changes to the zoning were necessary if the Rose Avenue extension <br />were deleted. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated the two major areas of undeveloped land are currently recommended <br />to be medium density residential, which has 2-8 unit per acre range. Staff has taken a position <br />through all the reviews of the Thompson, Alfieri and Jones properties that if the street doesn't <br />go through, that the development intensity of the area should be at the low end of that range, <br />about two units per acre. If the street actually went through, then there could be more units. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if it were necessary to change the land use designation for the area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that staff has not done analysis to determine what density is required. <br />However, the Rose Avenue extension was there not just to develop those sites, but also to <br />provide alternative access to the lower Del Prado, Pleasanton Valley, the older Rose Avenue <br />area and to be able to get to Valley Avenue and 1-680 without having to burden Pleasanton <br />Avenue and Bernal Avenue. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Pico, seconded by Ms. Dennis, to delete the Rose Avenue <br />extension from the General Plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis felt that if the goal of extending Rose Avenue cannot be carried out, why is <br />it in there? <br /> <br />07/09/96 -36- <br /> <br /> <br />